ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Deep learning model with collage images for the segmentation of dedicated breast positron emission tomography images.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter prospective study of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) for breast cancer: examination in preoperative patients.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- 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
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
backgroundDedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) has high contrast and resolution optimized for detecting small breast cancers, leading to its noisy characteristics. This study evaluated the application of deep learning to the automatic segmentation of abnormal uptakes on dbPET to facilitate the assessment of lesions. To address data scarcity in model training, we used collage images composed of cropped abnormal uptakes and normal breasts for data augmentation.
methodsThis retrospective study included 1598 examinations between April 2015 and August 2020. A U-Net-based model with an uptake shape classification head was trained using either the original or augmented dataset comprising collage images. The Dice score, which measures the pixel-wise agreement between a prediction and its ground truth, of the models was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, the classification accuracies were evaluated.
resultsAfter applying the exclusion criteria, 662 breasts were included; among these, 217 breasts had abnormal uptakes (mean age: 58 ± 14 years). Abnormal uptakes on the cranio-caudal and mediolateral maximum intensity projection images of 217 breasts were annotated and labeled as focus, mass, or non-mass. The inclusion of collage images into the original dataset yielded a Dice score of 0.884 and classification accuracy of 91.5%. Improvement in the Dice score was observed across all subgroups, and the score of images without breast cancer improved significantly from 0.750 to 0.834 (effect size: 0.76, P = 0.02).
conclusionsDeep learning can be applied for the automatic segmentation of dbPET, and collage images can improve model performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37634221What 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.