ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Predicting malignancy in breast lesions: enhancing accuracy with fine-tuned convolutional neural network models.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. 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.
- Application of Machine Learning to Breast MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to explore the accuracy of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models in predicting malignancy in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-BMRI).
methodsA total of 273 benign lesions (benign group) and 274 malignant lesions (malignant group) were collected and randomly divided into a training set (246 benign and 245 malignant lesions) and a testing set (28 benign and 28 malignant lesions) in a 9:1 ratio. An additional 53 lesions from 53 patients were designated as the validation set. Five models-VGG16, VGG19, DenseNet201, ResNet50, and MobileNetV2-were evaluated. Model performance was assessed using accuracy (Ac) in the training and testing sets, and precision (Pr), recall (Rc), F1 score (F1), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the validation set.
resultsThe accuracy of VGG19 on the test set (0.96) is higher than that of VGG16 (0.91), DenseNet201 (0.91), ResNet50 (0.67), and MobileNetV2 (0.88). For the validation set, VGG19 achieved higher performance metrics (Pr 0.75, Rc 0.76, F1 0.73, AUC 0.76) compared to the other models, specifically VGG16 (Pr 0.73, Rc 0.75, F1 0.70, AUC 0.73), DenseNet201 (Pr 0.71, Rc 0.74, F1 0.69, AUC 0.71), ResNet50 (Pr 0.65, Rc 0.68, F1 0.60, AUC 0.65), and MobileNetV2 (Pr 0.73, Rc 0.75, F1 0.71, AUC 0.73). S4 model achieved higher performance metrics (Pr 0.89, Rc 0.88, F1 0.87, AUC 0.89) compared to the other four fine-tuned models, specifically S1 (Pr 0.75, Rc 0.76, F1 0.74, AUC 0.75), S2 (Pr 0.77, Rc 0.79, F1 0.75, AUC 0.77), S3 (Pr 0.76, Rc 0.76, F1 0.73, AUC 0.75), and S5 (Pr 0.77, Rc 0.79, F1 0.75, AUC 0.77). Additionally, S4 model showed the lowest loss value in the testing set. Notably, the AUC of S4 for BI-RADS 3 was 0.90 and for BI-RADS 4 was 0.86, both significantly higher than the 0.65 AUC for BI-RADS 5.
conclusionsThe S4 model we propose has demonstrated superior performance in predicting the likelihood of malignancy in DCE-BMRI, making it a promising candidate for clinical application in patients with breast diseases. However, further validation is essential, highlighting the need for additional data to confirm its efficacy.
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.