ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2021
Microscopic Tumour Classification by Digital Mammography.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducibility and Explainability of Deep Learning in Mammography: A Systematic Review of Literature.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Review
- Retracted: Microscopic Tumour Classification by Digital Mammography.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-10-11Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the classification of microscopic tumours using full digital mammography images. Firstly, to address the shortcomings of traditional image segmentation methods, two different deep learning methods are designed to achieve the segmentation of uterine fibroids. The deep lab model is used to optimize the lesion edge detailed information by using the void convolution algorithm and fully connected CRF, and the two semantic segmentation networks are compared to obtain the best results. The Mask RCNN case segmentation model is used to effectively extract features through the ResNet structure, combined with the RPN network to achieve effective use and fusion of features, and continuously optimize the network training to achieve a fine segmentation of the lesion area, and demonstrate the accuracy and feasibility of the two models in medical image segmentation. Histopathology was used to obtain ER, PR, HER scores, and Ki-67 percentage values for all patients. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival estimation, the Log-rank test was used for single-factor analysis, and Cox proportional risk regression was used for multifactor analysis. The prognostic value of each factor was calculated, as well as the factors affecting progression-free survival. This study was done to compare the imaging characteristics and diagnostic value of mammography and colour Doppler ultrasonography in nonspecific mastitis, improve the understanding of the imaging characteristics of nonspecific mastitis in these two examinations, improve the accuracy of the diagnosis of this type of disease, improve the ability of distinguishing it from breast cancer, and reduce the rate of misdiagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.