ArticleMedical physics2022
Developing breast lesion detection algorithms for digital breast tomosynthesis: Leveraging false positive findings.
Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- The value of predicting breast cancer with a DBT 2.5D deep learning model.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Cross-Attention Adaptive Feature Pyramid Network with Uncertainty Boundary Modeling for Mass Detection in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An explainable-by-design end-to-end AI framework based on prototypical part learning for lesion detection and classification in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis images.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- The Role of Deep Learning in Advancing Breast Cancer Detection Using Different Imaging Modalities: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to the complex nature of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in imaging techniques, reading times are longer than 2D mammograms. A robust computer-aided diagnosis system in DBT could help radiologists reduce their workload and reading times. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop algorithms for detecting biopsy-proven breast lesions on DBT using multi-depth level convolutional models and leveraging non-biopsied samples. As biopsied positive samples in a lesion dataset are limited, we hypothesized that false positive (FP) findings by detection algorithms from non-biopsied benign lesions could improve detection algorithms by using them as data augmentation. APPROACH: We first extracted 2D slices from DBT volumes with biopsy-proven breast lesions (cancer and benign), with non-biopsied benign lesions (actionable), and for controls. Then, to provide lesion continuity along the z-direction, we combined a lesion slice with its immediate adjacent slices to synthesize 2.5-dimensional (2.5D) images of the lesion by assigning them into R, G, and B color channels. We used 224 biopsy-proven lesions from 39 cancer and 62 benign patients from a DBTex challenge dataset of 1000 scans. We included the 2.5D images of immediate neighboring slices from the lesion's center to increase the number of training samples. For lesion detection, we used the YOLOv5 algorithm as our base network. We trained a baseline algorithm (medium-depth level) using biopsied samples to detect actionable FPs in non-biopsied images. Afterward, we fine-tuned the baseline model on the augmented image set (actionable FPs added). For lesion inferencing, we processed the DBT volume slice-by-slice to estimate bounding boxes in each slice, and then combined them by connecting bounding boxes along the depth via volumetric morphological closing. We trained an additional model (large) with deeper-depth levels by repeating the above process. Finally, we developed an ensemble algorithm by combining the medium and large detection models. We used the free-response operating characteristic curve to evaluate our algorithms. We reported mean sensitivity per FPs per DBT volume only for biopsied views and sensitivity at 2-false positives per image (2FPI) for all views. However, due to the limited accessibility to the truth of the challenge validation and test datasets, we used sensitivity at 2FPI for statistical evaluation.
resultsFor the DBTex independent validation set, the medium baseline model achieved a mean sensitivity of 0.627 FPs per DBT volume, and a sensitivity of 0.640 at 2FPI. After adding actionable FP lesions, the model had an improved 2FPI of 0.769 over the baseline (p-value = 0.013). Our ensemble algorithm with multi-depth levels (medium + large) achieved a mean sensitivity of 0.815 FPs per DBT volume and an improved sensitivity at 2FPI of 0.80 over the baseline (p-value < 0.001) on the validation set. Finally, our ensemble model achieved a mean sensitivity of 0.786 FPs per DBT volume and a sensitivity of 0.743 at 2FPI on the DBTex independent test set.
conclusionsOur results show that actionable FP findings hold useful information for lesion detection algorithms, and our ensemble detection model with multi-depth levels improves lesion detection performance.
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.