ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Breast cancer classification in point-of-care ultrasound imaging-the impact of training data.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06932133 (Breast Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examination Trial), which is not on this 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.
Breast Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examination Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The survival rate of breast cancer for women in low- and middle-income countries is poor compared with that in high-income countries. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) combined with deep learning could potentially be a suitable solution enabling early detection of breast cancer. We aim to improve a classification network dedicated to classifying POCUS images by comparing different techniques for increasing the amount of training data. Approach: Two data sets consisting of breast tissue images were collected, one captured with POCUS and another with standard ultrasound (US). The data sets were expanded by using different techniques, including augmentation, histogram matching, histogram equalization, and cycle-consistent adversarial networks (CycleGANs). A classification network was trained on different combinations of the original and expanded data sets. Different types of augmentation were investigated and two different CycleGAN approaches were implemented. Results: Almost all methods for expanding the data sets significantly improved the classification results compared with solely using POCUS images during the training of the classification network. When training the classification network on POCUS and CycleGAN-generated POCUS images, it was possible to achieve an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 95.3% (95% confidence interval 93.4% to 97.0%). Conclusions: Applying augmentation during training showed to be important and increased the performance of the classification network. Adding more data also increased the performance, but using standard US images or CycleGAN-generated POCUS images gave similar results.
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.