ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Cross-site Validation of AI Segmentation and Harmonization in Breast MRI.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Applications in Diagnosis, Treatment Response, and Prognosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work aims to perform a cross-site validation of automated segmentation for breast cancers in MRI and to compare the performance to radiologists. A three-dimensional (3D) U-Net was trained to segment cancers in dynamic contrast-enhanced axial MRIs using a large dataset from Site 1 (n = 15,266; 449 malignant and 14,817 benign). Performance was validated on site-specific test data from this and two additional sites, and common publicly available testing data. Four radiologists from each of the three clinical sites provided two-dimensional (2D) segmentations as ground truth. Segmentation performance did not differ between the network and radiologists on the test data from Sites 1 and 2 or the common public data (median Dice score Site 1, network 0.86 vs. radiologist 0.85, n = 114; Site 2, 0.91 vs. 0.91, n = 50; common: 0.93 vs. 0.90). For Site 3, an affine input layer was fine-tuned using segmentation labels, resulting in comparable performance between the network and radiologist (0.88 vs. 0.89, n = 42). Radiologist performance differed on the common test data, and the network numerically outperformed 11 of the 12 radiologists (median Dice: 0.85-0.94, n = 20). In conclusion, a deep network with a novel supervised harmonization technique matches radiologists' performance in MRI tumor segmentation across clinical sites. We make code and weights publicly available to promote reproducible AI in radiology.
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.