ArticleCancers2022
Breast Tumor Identification in Ultrafast MRI Using Temporal and Spatial Information.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Abbreviated and Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of GliomaCancers · 2024Article
- Comparison of Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MRI with Conventional DCE MRI in the Morphological Assessment of Malignant Breast Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An Automated System for Analysis and Classification of Kinetic Curve on Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Breast Lesion.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the feasibility of using deep learning methods to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions in ultrafast MRI with both temporal and spatial information.
methodsA total of 173 single breasts of 122 women (151 examinations) with lesions above 5 mm were retrospectively included. A total of 109 out of 173 lesions were benign. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) images were generated from each of the 14 contrast-enhanced T1-weighted acquisitions in the ultrafast MRI scan. A 2D convolutional neural network (CNN) and a long short-term memory (LSTM) network were employed to extract morphological and temporal features, respectively. The 2D CNN model was trained with the MIPs from the last four acquisitions to ensure the visibility of the lesions, while the LSTM model took MIPs of an entire scan as input. The performance of each model and their combination were evaluated with 100-times repeated stratified four-fold cross-validation. Those models were then compared with models developed with standard DCE-MRI which followed the same data split.
resultsIn the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions, the ultrafast MRI-based 2D CNN achieved a mean AUC of 0.81 ± 0.06, and the LSTM network achieved a mean AUC of 0.78 ± 0.07; their combination showed a mean AUC of 0.83 ± 0.06 in the cross-validation. The mean AUC values were significantly higher for ultrafast MRI-based models than standard DCE-MRI-based models.
conclusionDeep learning models developed with ultrafast breast MRI achieved higher performances than standard DCE-MRI for malignancy discrimination. The improved AUC values of the combined models indicate an added value of temporal information extracted by the LSTM model in breast lesion characterization.
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.