ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
AMS-U-Net: automatic mass segmentation in digital breast tomosynthesis via U-Net.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic-to-Clinical Ensemble Learning for Volumetric Breast Tumor Segmentation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Under Limited Annotated Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated Tumor Segmentation in Breast-Conserving Surgery Using Deep Learning on Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Deep Learning in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Bibliometric Study of Segmentation, Detection, and Diagnostic Research From 2006 to 2025.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to develop a fully automatic mass segmentation method called AMS-U-Net for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), a popular breast cancer screening imaging modality. The aim was to address the challenges posed by the increasing number of slices in DBT, which leads to higher mass contouring workload and decreased treatment efficiency. Approach: The study used 50 slices from different DBT volumes for evaluation. The AMS-U-Net approach consisted of four stages: image pre-processing, AMS-U-Net training, image segmentation, and post-processing. The model performance was evaluated by calculating the true positive ratio (TPR), false positive ratio (FPR), F-score, intersection over union (IoU), and 95% Hausdorff distance (pixels) as they are appropriate for datasets with class imbalance. Results: The model achieved 0.911, 0.003, 0.911, 0.900, 5.82 for TPR, FPR, F-score, IoU, and 95% Hausdorff distance, respectively. Conclusions: The AMS-U-Net model demonstrated impressive visual and quantitative results, achieving high accuracy in mass segmentation without the need for human interaction. This capability has the potential to significantly increase clinical efficiency and workflow in DBT for breast cancer screening.
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.