ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023
Diagnostic efficiency of multi-modal MRI based deep learning with Sobel operator in differentiating benign and malignant breast mass lesions-a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Optimizing YOLOv11 for automated classification of breast cancer in medical images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Evolution and Clinical Impact of Deep Learning Technologies in Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Deep Transfer Learning Using Real-World Image Features for Medical Image Classification, with a Case Study on Pneumonia X-ray Images.Bioengineering (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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic efficiencies of deep learning single-modal and multi-modal for the classification of benign and malignant breast mass lesions. Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 203 patients (207 lesions, 101 benign and 106 malignant) with breast tumors who underwent breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before surgery or biopsy between January 2014 and October 2020. Mass segmentation was performed based on the three dimensions-region of interest (3D-ROI) minimum bounding cube at the edge of the lesion. We established single-modal models based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) including T2WI and non-fs T1WI, the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) first phase was pre-contrast T1WI (d1), and Phases 2, 4, and 6 were post-contrast T1WI (d2, d4, d6); and Multi-modal fusion models with a Sobel operator (four_mods:T2WI, non-fs-T1WI, d1, d2). Training set ( Results: All models showed good performance, and the AUC values were all greater than 0.750. Among the single-modal models, T2WI, non-fs-T1WI, d1, and d2 had specificities of 77.1%, 77.2%, 80.2%, and 78.2%, respectively. d2 had the highest accuracy of 78.5% and showed the best diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.827. The multi-modal model with the Sobel operator performed better than single-modal models, with an AUC of 0.887, sensitivity of 79.8%, specificity of 86.1%, and positive prediction value of 85.6%. Delong's test showed that the diagnostic performance of the multi-modal fusion models was higher than that of the six single-modal models (T2WI, non-fs-T1WI, d1, d2, d4, d6); the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusions: Multi-modal fusion deep learning models with a Sobel operator had excellent diagnostic value in the classification of breast masses, and further increase the efficiency of diagnosis.
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.