Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343223›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024

Robustness of Deep Networks for Mammography: Replication Across Public Datasets.

Osvaldo M Velarde, Clarissa Lin, Sarah Eskreis-Winkler, Lucas C Parra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Development of an Automated CAD System for Lesion Detection in DCE-MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. [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 · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Osvaldo M VelardeThe Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, 10030, New York, NY, USA. ovelarde@ccny.cuny.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7291-4018
Clarissa LinDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 10065, New York, NY, USA.
Sarah Eskreis-WinklerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 10065, New York, NY, USA.
Lucas C ParraThe Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, 10030, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Training and Career Development CoreU54CA132378 · NCI · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI Tim Alan Ahles, ADRIANA ESPINOSA · 2008 to 2026
$28.9M
Training and Career Development and Education CoreU54CA137788 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI Daniel Alan Heller · 2008 to 2026
$28.1M
Machine learning for risk-adjusted breast MRI screeningR01CA247910 · NCI · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI PARRA, LUCAS C, SUTTON, ELIZABETH J · 2021 to 2025
$3.3M
Cancer Research UK 28396NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA247910NCI NIH HHS R01CA247910NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132378NCI NIH HHS U54CA132378NCI NIH HHS U54 CA137788
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsDeep LearningMammographyNeural Networks, ComputerFemaleHumansROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBreast cancerDeep learningDiagnosisMammography

Identifiers

PMID38343223
PMCPMC11031505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.