ArticleCureus2024
Leveraging Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines for Accurate Classification of Breast Tumors in Ultrasound Images.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- A risk prediction model for recurrence in patients with borderline ovarian tumor based on artificial neural network: development and validation study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women, and ultrasound imaging is crucial for early detection. However, variability in interpretation can affect diagnosis. Therefore, this study compared the performance of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector machines (SVMs) in classifying breast tumors using ultrasound images. Method This comparative study was conducted from June 1, 2023, to June 1, 2024, using a convenience sampling method. Data were gathered from the Center for Breast Diseases at Nanakali Hospital in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and a publicly available dataset from Kaggle. ANN and SVM models were then applied to classify the tumors. Statistical analysis was performed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0 (Released 2021; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States), with performance metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and Kappa coefficient calculated for both models. Results The ANN model achieved an accuracy of 87.78%, with a sensitivity of 86.67% and a specificity of 88.89%. The SVM model demonstrated an accuracy of 86.67%, with a higher specificity of 95.56% but a lower sensitivity of 77.78%. Both models showed substantial agreement between predicted and actual classifications, with Kappa coefficients of 75.56% for ANN and 73.33% for SVM. The mean, skewness, and area were identified as the most important variables for the ANN model, while solidity, circularity, and perimeter were the most critical features of the SVM model. Conclusions The results indicated that ANN had a marginally higher accuracy than SVM in classifying breast tumors. It is recommended to further optimize these models for clinical use, improve the integration of machine learning in medical imaging, and expand the dataset to enhance model generalizability and robustness.
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.