ReviewJournal of imaging2021
A Bottom-Up Review of Image Analysis Methods for Suspicious Region Detection in Mammograms.
Review 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Shape factor analysis as a quantitative framework for assessing spheroid and organoid morphology and invasiveness.APL bioengineering · 2026Article
- Shape Factor Analysis as a Quantitative Framework for Assessing Spheroid and Organoid Morphology and Invasiveness.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- BCECNN: an explainable deep ensemble architecture for accurate diagnosis of breast cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Deep learning applications to breast cancer detection by magnetic resonance imaging: a literature review.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Review
- Efficient breast cancer mammograms diagnosis using three deep neural networks and term variance.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- ETECADx: Ensemble Self-Attention Transformer Encoder for Breast Cancer Diagnosis Using Full-Field Digital X-ray Breast Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Smart Visualization of Medical Images as a Tool in the Function of Education in Neuroradiology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Image Augmentation Techniques for Mammogram Analysis.Journal of imaging · 2022Review
- Elimination of Defects in Mammograms Caused by a Malfunction of the Device Matrix.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- YOLOv4-Based CNN Model versus Nested Contours Algorithm in the Suspicious Lesion Detection on the Mammography Image: A Direct Comparison in the Real Clinical Settings.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the most common death causes amongst women all over the world. Early detection of breast cancer plays a critical role in increasing the survival rate. Various imaging modalities, such as mammography, breast MRI, ultrasound and thermography, are used to detect breast cancer. Though there is a considerable success with mammography in biomedical imaging, detecting suspicious areas remains a challenge because, due to the manual examination and variations in shape, size, other mass morphological features, mammography accuracy changes with the density of the breast. Furthermore, going through the analysis of many mammograms per day can be a tedious task for radiologists and practitioners. One of the main objectives of biomedical imaging is to provide radiologists and practitioners with tools to help them identify all suspicious regions in a given image. Computer-aided mass detection in mammograms can serve as a second opinion tool to help radiologists avoid running into oversight errors. The scientific community has made much progress in this topic, and several approaches have been proposed along the way. Following a bottom-up narrative, this paper surveys different scientific methodologies and techniques to detect suspicious regions in mammograms spanning from methods based on low-level image features to the most recent novelties in AI-based approaches. Both theoretical and practical grounds are provided across the paper sections to highlight the pros and cons of different methodologies. The paper's main scope is to let readers embark on a journey through a fully comprehensive description of techniques, strategies and datasets on the topic.
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.