ArticleJournal of imaging2021
Study on Data Partition for Delimitation of Masses in Mammography.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- MB-SwinRefiner: Mammographic Mass Segmentation with Probability-Guided Residual Refinement.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- From Machine Learning to Ensemble Approaches: A Systematic Review of Mammogram Classification Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- YOLO-Tryppa: A Novel YOLO-Based Approach for Rapid and Accurate Detection of Small Trypanosoma Parasites.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Advanced Computational Methods for Oncological Image Analysis.Journal of imaging · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mammography is the primary medical imaging method used for routine screening and early detection of breast cancer in women. However, the process of manually inspecting, detecting, and delimiting the tumoral massess in 2D images is a very time-consuming task, subject to human errors due to fatigue. Therefore, integrated computer-aided detection systems have been proposed, based on modern computer vision and machine learning methods. In the present work, mammogram images from the publicly available Inbreast dataset are first converted to pseudo-color and then used to train and test a Mask R-CNN deep neural network. The most common approach is to start with a dataset and split the images into train and test set randomly. However, since there are often two or more images of the same case in the dataset, the way the dataset is split may have an impact on the results. Our experiments show that random partition of the data can produce unreliable training, so the dataset must be split using case-wise partition for more stable results. In experimental results, the method achieves an average true positive rate of 0.936 with 0.063 standard deviation using random partition and 0.908 with 0.002 standard deviation using case-wise partition, showing that case-wise partition must be used for more reliable results.
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.