ArticleScientific reports2023
Saliency of breast lesions in breast cancer detection using artificial intelligence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Artificial Intelligence Thresholds for Mammographic Lesion Detection: A Retrospective Study on Diagnostic Performance and Radiologist-Artificial Intelligence Discordance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Identifying clinically relevant findings in breast cancer using deep learning and feature attribution on local views from high-resolution mammography.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Advances in Imaging, Pathology, and Personalized Care.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The utility of quantifying the orientation of breast masses in ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Overcoming the Black Box Challenge: Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Oncology.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
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.
Funding
Abstract
The analysis of mammograms using artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great potential for assisting breast cancer screening. We use saliency maps to study the role of breast lesions in the decision-making process of AI systems for breast cancer detection in screening mammograms. We retrospectively collected mammograms from 191 women with screen-detected breast cancer and 191 healthy controls matched by age and mammographic system. Two radiologists manually segmented the breast lesions in the mammograms from CC and MLO views. We estimated the detection performance of four deep learning-based AI systems using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used automatic thresholding on saliency maps from the AI systems to identify the areas of interest on the mammograms. Finally, we measured the overlap between these areas of interest and the segmented breast lesions using Dice's similarity coefficient (DSC). The detection performance of the AI systems ranged from low to moderate (AUCs from 0.525 to 0.694). The overlap between the areas of interest and the breast lesions was low for all the studied methods (median DSC from 4.2% to 38.0%). The AI system with the highest cancer detection performance (AUC = 0.694, CI 0.662-0.726) showed the lowest overlap (DSC = 4.2%) with breast lesions. The areas of interest found by saliency analysis of the AI systems showed poor overlap with breast lesions. These results suggest that AI systems with the highest performance do not solely rely on localized breast lesions for their decision-making in cancer detection; rather, they incorporate information from large image regions. This work contributes to the understanding of the role of breast lesions in cancer detection using AI.
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.