ArticleScientific reports2022
Ultra-high resolution, multi-scale, context-aware approach for detection of small cancers on mammography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Micro-CT radiomics reveals the microcalcification-surrounding tissue interface as the diagnostic epicenter of breast microcalcifications.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Enhancing breast cancer detection on screening mammogram using self-supervised learning and a hybrid deep model of Swin Transformer and convolutional neural networks.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of osteopontin-stabilized amorphous calcium phosphate calcification in benign and pre-malignant breast disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Towards generalizable Federated Learning in medical imaging: A real-world case study on mammography data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While detection of malignancies on mammography has received a boost with the use of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), detection of cancers of very small size remains challenging. This is however clinically significant as the purpose of mammography is early detection of cancer, making it imperative to pick them up when they are still very small. Mammography has the highest spatial resolution (image sizes as high as 3328 × 4096 pixels) out of all imaging modalities, a requirement that stems from the need to detect fine features of the smallest cancers on screening. However due to computational constraints, most state of the art CNNs work on reduced resolution images. Those that work on higher resolutions, compromise on global context and work at single scale. In this work, we show that resolution, scale and image-context are all important independent factors in detection of small masses. We thereby use a fully convolutional network, with the ability to take any input size. In addition, we incorporate a systematic multi-scale, multi-resolution approach, and encode image context, which we show are critical factors to detection of small masses. We show that this approach improves the detection of cancer, particularly for small masses in comparison to the baseline model. We perform a single institution multicentre study, and show the performance of the model on a diagnostic mammography dataset, a screening mammography dataset, as well as a curated dataset of small cancers < 1 cm in size. We show that our approach improves the sensitivity from 61.53 to 87.18% at 0.3 False Positives per Image (FPI) on this small cancer dataset. Model and code are available from https://github.com/amangupt01/Small_Cancer_Detection.
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.