Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34703489›Full record

ArticleBiomedical signal processing and control2020

Breast mass segmentation in ultrasound with selective kernel U-Net convolutional neural network.

Michal Byra, Piotr Jarosik, Aleksandra Szubert, Michael Galperin, Haydee Ojeda-Fournier, Linda Olson, Mary O'Boyle, Christopher Comstock, Michael Andre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical signal processing and control, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CDM-UNet: Content-Driven Enhanced Mamba Model for Medical Image Segmentation.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. BCT-Net: semantic-guided breast cancer segmentation on BUS.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025
    Article
  16. MDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michal ByraDepartment of Ultrasound, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Piotr JarosikDepartment of Information and Computational Science, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Aleksandra SzubertMaria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Michael GalperinAlmen Laboratories, Vista, USA.
Haydee Ojeda-FournierDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Linda OlsonDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Mary O'BoyleDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Christopher ComstockMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Michael AndreDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Computer-aided tool for diagnostic breast ultrasoundR44CA112858 · NCI · ALMEN LABORATORIES, INC. · PI GALPERIN, MICHAEL · 2006 to 2008
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R44 CA112858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this work, we propose a deep learning method for breast mass segmentation in ultrasound (US). Variations in breast mass size and image characteristics make the automatic segmentation difficult. To address this issue, we developed a selective kernel (SK) U-Net convolutional neural network. The aim of the SKs was to adjust network's receptive fields via an attention mechanism, and fuse feature maps extracted with dilated and conventional convolutions. The proposed method was developed and evaluated using US images collected from 882 breast masses. Moreover, we used three datasets of US images collected at different medical centers for testing (893 US images). On our test set of 150 US images, the SK-U-Net achieved mean Dice score of 0.826, and outperformed regular U-Net, Dice score of 0.778. When evaluated on three separate datasets, the proposed method yielded mean Dice scores ranging from 0.646 to 0.780. Additional fine-tuning of our better-performing model with data collected at different centers improved mean Dice scores by ~6%. SK-U-Net utilized both dilated and regular convolutions to process US images. We found strong correlation, Spearman's rank coefficient of 0.7, between the utilization of dilated convolutions and breast mass size in the case of network's expansion path. Our study shows the usefulness of deep learning methods for breast mass segmentation. SK-U-Net implementation and pre-trained weights can be found at github.com/mbyr/bus_seg.

Indexed as

Attention mechanismBreast mass segmentationConvolutional neural networksDeep learningReceptive fieldUltrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID34703489
PMCPMC8545275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.