ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence Analysis with Textural Metrics Extracted by Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Breast Lesions Classification.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics-based differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses on contrast-enhanced mammography: a reproducible workflow using open-source tools.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Machine and Deep Learning on Radiomic Features from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Characterization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning-Based Radiomics and Deep Learning for Breast Lesion Classification in Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic test accuracy of AI-assisted mammography for breast imaging: a narrative review.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- An updated overview of radiomics-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Review
- Article
- Predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer using a multimodal radiomics and deep learning model.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- A Statistical Approach to Assess the Robustness of Radiomics Features in the Discrimination of Mammographic Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Freehand 1.5T MR-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy (MR-VABB): Contribution of Radiomics to the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The utilization of artificial intelligence applications to improve breast cancer detection and prognosis.Saudi medical journal · 2023Review
- Machine Learning Approaches with Textural Features to Calculate Breast Density on Mammography.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Empowering breast cancer diagnosis and radiology practice: advances in artificial intelligence for contrast-enhanced mammography.Frontiers in radiology · 2023Review
- Radiomics and Machine Learning Analysis Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Colorectal Liver Metastases Growth Pattern.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Radiomic and Artificial Intelligence Analysis with Textural Metrics Extracted by Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Dynamic Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Breast Malignant Lesions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- An update on radiomics techniques in primary liver cancers.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- EOB-MR Based Radiomics Analysis to Assess Clinical Outcomes following Liver Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastases.Cancers · 2022Article
- Article
- Radiomic features of breast parenchyma: assessing differences between FOR PROCESSING and FOR PRESENTATION digital mammography.Insights into imaging · 2021Article
- Computed Tomography Structured Reporting in the Staging of Lymphoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of textural features extracted by dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images, by carrying out univariate and multivariate statistical analyses including artificial intelligence approaches. In total, 80 patients with known breast lesion were enrolled in this prospective study according to regulations issued by the local Institutional Review Board. All patients underwent dual-energy CEM examination in both craniocaudally (CC) and double acquisition of mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections (early and late). The reference standard was pathology from a surgical specimen for malignant lesions and pathology from a surgical specimen or fine needle aspiration cytology, core or Tru-Cut needle biopsy, and vacuum assisted breast biopsy for benign lesions. In total, 104 samples of 80 patients were analyzed. Furthermore, 48 textural parameters were extracted by manually segmenting regions of interest. Univariate and multivariate approaches were performed: non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test; receiver operating characteristic (ROC), linear classifier (LDA), decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), artificial neural network (NNET), and support vector machine (SVM) were utilized. A balancing approach and feature selection methods were used. The univariate analysis showed low accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) for all considered features. Instead, in the multivariate textural analysis, the best performance considering the CC view (accuracy (ACC) = 0.75; AUC = 0.82) was reached with a DT trained with leave-one-out cross-variation (LOOCV) and balanced data (with adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) function) and a subset of three robust textural features (MAD, VARIANCE, and LRLGE). The best performance (ACC = 0.77; AUC = 0.83) considering the early-MLO view was reached with a NNET trained with LOOCV and balanced data (with ADASYN function) and a subset of ten robust features (MEAN, MAD, RANGE, IQR, VARIANCE, CORRELATION, RLV, COARSNESS, BUSYNESS, and STRENGTH). The best performance (ACC = 0.73; AUC = 0.82) considering the late-MLO view was reached with a NNET trained with LOOCV and balanced data (with ADASYN function) and a subset of eleven robust features (MODE, MEDIAN, RANGE, RLN, LRLGE, RLV, LZLGE, GLV_GLSZM, ZSV, COARSNESS, and BUSYNESS). Multivariate analyses using pattern recognition approaches, considering 144 textural features extracted from all three mammographic projections (CC, early MLO, and late MLO), optimized by adaptive synthetic sampling and feature selection operations obtained the best results (ACC = 0.87; AUC = 0.90) and showed the best performance in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions.
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.