ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Diagnostic value of mammography density of breast masses by using deep learning.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic literature review on mammography: deep learning techniques for breast cancer detection with global and Asian perspectives.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- The value of predicting breast cancer with a DBT 2.5D deep learning model.Discover oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In order to explore the relationship between mammographic density of breast mass and its surrounding area and benign or malignant breast, this paper proposes a deep learning model based on C2FTrans to diagnose the breast mass using mammographic density. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent mammographic and pathological examination. Two physicians manually depicted the lesion edges and used a computer to automatically extend and segment the peripheral areas of the lesion (0, 1, 3, and 5 mm, including the lesion). We then obtained the mammary glands' density and the different regions of interest (ROI). A diagnostic model for breast mass lesions based on C2FTrans was constructed based on a 7: 3 ratio between the training and testing sets. Finally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. Model performance was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals ( Results: In total, 401 lesions (158 benign and 243 malignant) were included in this study. The probability of breast cancer in women was positively correlated with age and mass density and negatively correlated with breast gland classification. The largest correlation was observed for age (r = 0.47). Among all models, the single mass ROI model had the highest specificity (91.8%) with an AUC = 0.823 and the perifocal 5mm ROI model had the highest sensitivity (86.9%) with an AUC = 0.855. In addition, by combining the cephalocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of the perifocal 5 mm ROI model, we obtained the highest AUC (AUC = 0.877 P < 0.001). Conclusions: Deep learning model of mammographic density can better distinguish benign and malignant mass-type lesions in digital mammography images and may become an auxiliary diagnostic tool for radiologists in the future.
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.