Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943262›Full record

ArticleBiology2021

BreastNet18: A High Accuracy Fine-Tuned VGG16 Model Evaluated Using Ablation Study for Diagnosing Breast Cancer from Enhanced Mammography Images.

Sidratul Montaha, Sami Azam, Abul Kalam Muhammad Rakibul Haque Rafid, Pronab Ghosh, Md Zahid Hasan, Mirjam Jonkman, Friso De Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Sidratul MontahaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.
Sami AzamCollege of Engineering, IT and Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7572-9750
Abul Kalam Muhammad Rakibul Haque RafidDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-6236-2352
Pronab GhoshDepartment of Computer Science (CS), Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Rd, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada.
Md Zahid HasanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-0132-1717
Mirjam JonkmanCollege of Engineering, IT and Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.
Friso De BoerCollege of Engineering, IT and Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification and treatment of breast cancer at an early stage can reduce mortality. Currently, mammography is the most widely used effective imaging technique in breast cancer detection. However, an erroneous mammogram based interpretation may result in false diagnosis rate, as distinguishing cancerous masses from adjacent tissue is often complex and error-prone.

methodsSix pre-trained and fine-tuned deep CNN architectures: VGG16, VGG19, MobileNetV2, ResNet50, DenseNet201, and InceptionV3 are evaluated to determine which model yields the best performance. We propose a BreastNet18 model using VGG16 as foundational base, since VGG16 performs with the highest accuracy. An ablation study is performed on BreastNet18, to evaluate its robustness and achieve the highest possible accuracy. Various image processing techniques with suitable parameter values are employed to remove artefacts and increase the image quality. A total dataset of 1442 preprocessed mammograms was augmented using seven augmentation techniques, resulting in a dataset of 11,536 images. To investigate possible overfitting issues, a k-fold cross validation is carried out. The model was then tested on noisy mammograms to evaluate its robustness. Results were compared with previous studies.

resultsProposed BreastNet18 model performed best with a training accuracy of 96.72%, a validating accuracy of 97.91%, and a test accuracy of 98.02%. In contrast to this, VGGNet19 yielded test accuracy of 96.24%, MobileNetV2 77.84%, ResNet50 79.98%, DenseNet201 86.92%, and InceptionV3 76.87%.

conclusionsOur proposed approach based on image processing, transfer learning, fine-tuning, and ablation study has demonstrated a high correct breast cancer classification while dealing with a limited number of complex medical images.

Indexed as

ablation studybreast cancer classificationCBIS-DDSMdata augmentationdeep learningfeature map analysisfine-tuned VGG16image preprocessingmammogramstransfer learning models

Identifiers

PMID34943262
PMCPMC8698892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.