ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Breast Dense Tissue Segmentation with Noisy Labels: A Hybrid Threshold-Based and Mask-Based Approach.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning-Based Automated Reports for Breast Density Assessment in Mammography Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Breast cancer risk assessment for screening: a hybrid artificial intelligence approach.European radiology · 2026Article
- Towards Automated Semantic Segmentation in Mammography Images for Enhanced Clinical Applications.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Three-Blind Validation Strategy of Deep Learning Models for Image Segmentation.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Towards generalizable Federated Learning in medical imaging: A real-world case study on mammography data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Breast Delineation in Full-Field Digital Mammography Using the Segment Anything Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Breast density assessed from digital mammograms is a known biomarker related to a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Supervised learning algorithms have been implemented to determine this. However, the performance of these algorithms depends on the quality of the ground-truth information, which expert readers usually provide. These expert labels are noisy approximations to the ground truth, as there is both intra- and inter-observer variability among them. Thus, it is crucial to provide a reliable method to measure breast density from mammograms. This paper presents a fully automated method based on deep learning to estimate breast density, including breast detection, pectoral muscle exclusion, and dense tissue segmentation. We propose a novel confusion matrix (CM)-YNet model for the segmentation step. This architecture includes networks to model each radiologist's noisy label and gives the estimated ground-truth segmentation as well as two parameters that allow interaction with a threshold-based labeling tool. A multi-center study involving 1785 women whose "for presentation" mammograms were obtained from 11 different medical facilities was performed. A total of 2496 mammograms were used as the training corpus, and 844 formed the testing corpus. Additionally, we included a totally independent dataset from a different center, composed of 381 women with one image per patient. Each mammogram was labeled independently by two expert radiologists using a threshold-based tool. The implemented CM-Ynet model achieved the highest DICE score averaged over both test datasets (0.82±0.14) when compared to the closest dense-tissue segmentation assessment from both radiologists. The level of concordance between the two radiologists showed a DICE score of 0.76±0.17. An automatic breast density estimator based on deep learning exhibited higher performance when compared with two experienced radiologists. This suggests that modeling each radiologist's label allows for better estimation of the unknown ground-truth segmentation. The advantage of the proposed model is that it also provides the threshold parameters that enable user interaction with a threshold-based tool.
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.