Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569820›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

An automated toolbox for microcalcification cluster modeling for mammographic imaging.

Astrid Van Camp, Eva Punter, Katrien Houbrechts, Lesley Cockmartin, Renate Prevos, Nicholas W Marshall, Henry C Woodruff, Philippe Lambin, Hilde Bosmans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Astrid Van CampDepartment of Precision Medicine, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Eva PunterDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Katrien HoubrechtsDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lesley CockmartinDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Renate PrevosDepartment of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicholas W MarshallDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Henry C WoodruffDepartment of Precision Medicine, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Philippe LambinDepartment of Precision Medicine, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hilde BosmansDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101034347European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101057062European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101057699European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101095435European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101100633European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 101136670European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 733008European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 952103European Union's Horizon research and innovation program under 952172Fonds Wetenschappelijk onderzoek (FWO) GPMU/20/041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammographic imaging is essential for breast cancer detection and diagnosis. In addition to masses, calcifications are of concern and the early detection of breast cancer also heavily relies on the correct interpretation of suspicious microcalcification clusters. Even with advances in imaging and the introduction of novel techniques such as digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography, a correct interpretation can still be challenging given the subtle nature and large variety of calcifications. PURPOSE: Computer simulated lesion models can serve to develop, optimize, or improve imaging techniques. In addition to their use in comparative (virtual clinical trial) detection experiments, these models have potential application in training deep learning models and in the understanding and interpretation of breast lesions. Existing simulation methods, however, often lack the capacity to model the diversity occurring in breast lesions or to generate models relevant for a specific case. This study focuses on clusters of microcalcifications and introduces an automated, flexible toolbox designed to generate microcalcification cluster models customized to specific tasks.

methodsThe toolbox allows users to control a large number of simulation parameters related to model characteristics such as lesion size, calcification shape, or number of microcalcifications per cluster. This leads to the capability of creating models that range from regular to complex clusters. Based on the input parameters, which are either tuned manually or pre-set for a specific clinical type, different sets of models can be simulated depending on the use case. Two lesion generation methods are described. The first method generates three-dimensional microcalcification clusters models based on geometrical shapes and transformations. The second method creates two-dimensional (2D) microcalcification cluster models for a specific 2D mammographic image. This novel method employs radiomics analysis to account for local textures, ensuring the simulated microcalcification cluster is appropriately integrated within the existing breast tissue. The toolbox is implemented in the Python language and can be conveniently run through a Jupyter Notebook interface, openly accessible at https://gitlab.kuleuven.be/medphysqa/deploy/breast-calcifications. Validation studies performed by radiologists assessed the level of malignancy and realism of clusters tuned with specific parameters and inserted in mammographic images.

resultsThe flexibility of the toolbox with multiple simulation methods is illustrated, as well as the compatibility with different simulation frameworks and image types. The automation allows for the straightforward and fast generation of diverse microcalcification cluster models. The generated models are most likely applicable for various tasks as they can be configured in a variety of ways and inserted in different types of mammographic images of multiple acquisition systems. Validation studies confirmed the capacity to simulate realistic clusters and capture clinical properties when tuned with appropriate parameter settings.

conclusionThis simulation toolbox offers a flexible means of simulating microcalcification cluster models with potential use in both technical and clinical research in mammography imaging. The 3D generation methods allow for specifying many characteristics regarding the calcification shape and cluster architecture, and the 2D generation method presents a novel manner to create microcalcification clusters tailored to existing breast textures.

Indexed as

CalcinosisImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyAutomationBreast NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansmammographymicrocalcification clustersimulation

Identifiers

PMID39569820
PMCPMC11788264

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.