ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2022
Automated quantitative assessment of amorphous calcifications: Towards improved malignancy risk stratification.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-based multimodal fusion for preoperative prediction of breast microcalcifications: combining mammography and tomosynthesis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Classification of BI-RADS 4 and BI-RADS 5 Microcalcifications in Mammography Combined with DCE-MRI for Malignant-Benign Discrimination.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmorphous calcifications noted on mammograms (i.e., small and indistinct calcifications that are difficult to characterize) are associated with high diagnostic uncertainty, often leading to biopsies. Yet, only 20% of biopsied amorphous calcifications are cancer. We present a quantitative approach for distinguishing between benign and actionable (high-risk and malignant) amorphous calcifications using a combination of local textures, global spatial relationships, and interpretable handcrafted expert features.
methodOur approach was trained and validated on a set of 168 2D full-field digital mammography exams (248 images) from 168 patients. Within these 248 images, we identified 276 image regions with segmented amorphous calcifications and a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis. A set of local (radiomic and region measurements) and global features (distribution and expert-defined) were extracted from each image. Local features were grouped using an unsupervised k-means clustering algorithm. All global features were concatenated with clustered local features and used to train a LightGBM classifier to distinguish benign from actionable cases.
resultsOn the held-out test set of 60 images, our approach achieved a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 35%, and a positive predictive value of 38% when the decision threshold was set to 0.4. Given that all of the images in our test set resulted in a recommendation of a biopsy, the use of our algorithm would have identified 15 images (25%) that were benign, potentially reducing the number of breast biopsies.
conclusionsQuantitative analysis of full-field digital mammograms can extract subtle shape, texture, and distribution features that may help to distinguish between benign and actionable amorphous calcifications.
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.