ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
A Deep Learning Image Data Augmentation Method for Single Tumor Segmentation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive blood glucose level prediction from HbAScientific reports · 2026Article
- Application of an artificial intelligence-based airway identification system in tracheal intubation.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Using multiple machine learning algorithms to predict spinal cord injury in patients with cervical spondylosis: a multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing Lesion Segmentation in Ultrasound Images: The Impact of Targeted Data Augmentation Strategies.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2025Article
- Can deep learning technology really recognize Mpox? A positive response from the EfficientNet model.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Integrating Super-Resolution with Deep Learning for Enhanced Periodontal Bone Loss Segmentation in Panoramic Radiographs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prediction model for spinal cord injury in spinal tuberculosis patients using multiple machine learning algorithms: a multicentric study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Histopathology-based breast cancer prediction using deep learning methods for healthcare applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Developing precision agriculture using data augmentation framework for automatic identification of castor insect pests.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMedical imaging examination is the primary method of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer. However, the amount of medical image data is often not enough to meet deep learning needs. This article aims to expand the small data set in tumor segmentation based on the deep learning method.
methodsThis method includes three main parts: image cutting and mirroring augmentation, segmentation of augmented images, and boundary reconstruction. Firstly, the image is divided into four parts horizontally & vertically, and diagonally along the tumor's approximate center. Then each part is mirrored to get a new image and hence a four times data set. Next, the deep learning network trains the augmented data and gets the corresponding segmentation model. Finally, the segmentation boundary of the original tumor is obtained by boundary compensation and reconstruction.
resultsCombined with Mask-RCNN and U-Net, this study carried out experiments on a public breast ultrasound data set. The results show that the dice similarity coefficient (DSC) value obtained by horizontal and vertical cutting and mirroring augmentation and boundary reconstruction improved by 9.66% and 12.43% compared with no data augmentation. Moreover, the DSC obtained by diagonal cutting and mirroring augmentation and boundary reconstruction method improved by 9.46% and 13.74% compared with no data augmentation. Compared with data augmentation methods (cropping, rotating, and mirroring), this method's DSC improved by 4.92% and 12.23% on Mask-RCNN and U-Net.
conclusionCompared with the traditional methods, the proposed data augmentation method has better performance in single tumor segmentation.
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.