Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39830074›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025

Breast cancer classification in point-of-care ultrasound imaging-the impact of training data.

Jennie Karlsson, Ida Arvidsson, Freja Sahlin, Kalle Åström, Niels Christian Overgaard, Kristina Lång, Anders Heyden

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT06932133 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Breast Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examination Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRegion SkaneRan2025 to 2027Enrolled600ConditionsBreast CancerArmsPoint-of-care ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Jennie KarlssonLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7601-4770
Ida ArvidssonLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6065-8639
Freja SahlinLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.
Kalle ÅströmLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.
Niels Christian OvergaardLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4142-0741
Kristina LångLund University, Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-1897
Anders HeydenLund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Division of Computer Vision and Machine Learning, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3063-355X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

breast cancerbreast ultrasoundconvolutional neural networkscycle-consistent adversarial networkspoint-of-care ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39830074
PMCPMC11740782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.