ArticleJournal of imaging2023
An Innovative Faster R-CNN-Based Framework for Breast Cancer Detection in MRI.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Deep learning-enhanced detection of dental restorations and orthodontic appliances in panoramic radiographs using a clinically annotated dataset.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Management of Cancers: Potentials and Challenges.MedComm · 2025Review
- Deep learning for appendicitis: development of a three-dimensional localization model on CT.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of AI-based models versus physicians among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Replacing lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer globally, breast cancer (BC) today accounts for 1 in 8 cancer diagnoses and a total of 2.3 million new cases in both sexes combined. An estimated 685,000 women died from BC in 2020, corresponding to 16% or 1 in every 6 cancer deaths in women. BC represents a quarter of a total of cancer cases in females and by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in 2020. However, when detected in the early stages of the disease, treatment methods have proven to be very effective in increasing life expectancy and, in many cases, patients fully recover. Several medical imaging modalities, such as X-rays Mammography (MG), Ultrasound (US), Computer Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Digital Tomosynthesis (DT) have been explored to support radiologists/physicians in clinical decision-making workflows for the detection and diagnosis of BC. In this work, we propose a novel Faster R-CNN-based framework to automate the detection of BC pathological Lesions in MRI. As a main contribution, we have developed and experimentally (statistically) validated an innovative method improving the "breast MRI preprocessing phase" to select the patient's slices (images) and associated bounding boxes representing pathological lesions. In this way, it is possible to create a more robust training (benchmarking) dataset to feed Deep Learning (DL) models, reducing the computation time and the dimension of the dataset, and more importantly, to identify with high accuracy the specific regions (bounding boxes) for each of the patient's images, in which a possible pathological lesion (tumor) has been identified. As a result, in an experimental setting using a fully annotated dataset (released to the public domain) comprising a total of 922 MRI-based BC patient cases, we have achieved, as the most accurate trained model, an accuracy rate of 97.83%, and subsequently, applying a ten-fold cross-validation method, a mean accuracy on the trained models of 94.46% and an associated standard deviation of 2.43%.
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.