ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Robustness of Deep Networks for Mammography: Replication Across Public Datasets.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of artificial intelligence in precision medicine for breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Development of an Automated CAD System for Lesion Detection in DCE-MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- [Artificial intelligence in predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: current advances and challenges].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Review
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- An open codebase for enhancing transparency in deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis utilizing CBIS-DDSM data.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep neural networks have demonstrated promising performance in screening mammography with recent studies reporting performance at or above the level of trained radiologists on internal datasets. However, it remains unclear whether the performance of these trained models is robust and replicates across external datasets. In this study, we evaluate four state-of-the-art publicly available models using four publicly available mammography datasets (CBIS-DDSM, INbreast, CMMD, OMI-DB). Where test data was available, published results were replicated. The best-performing model, which achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.88 on internal data from NYU, achieved here an AUC of 0.9 on the external CMMD dataset (N = 826 exams). On the larger OMI-DB dataset (N = 11,440 exams), it achieved an AUC of 0.84 but did not match the performance of individual radiologists (at a specificity of 0.92, the sensitivity was 0.97 for the radiologist and 0.53 for the network for a 1-year follow-up). The network showed higher performance for in situ cancers, as opposed to invasive cancers. Among invasive cancers, it was relatively weaker at identifying asymmetries and was relatively stronger at identifying masses. The three other trained models that we evaluated all performed poorly on external datasets. Independent validation of trained models is an essential step to ensure safe and reliable use. Future progress in AI for mammography may depend on a concerted effort to make larger datasets publicly available that span multiple clinical sites.
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.