ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Identification of benign and malignant breast nodules on ultrasound: comparison of multiple deep learning models and model interpretation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Combined 2D-US and CDUS Nomogram for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- A segmentation-guided CNN-Vision transformer feature fusion framework for multi-class breast ultrasound image classification.PloS one · 2026Article
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
Background and Purpose: Deep learning (DL) algorithms generally require full supervision of annotating the region of interest (ROI), a process that is both labor-intensive and susceptible to bias. We aimed to develop a weakly supervised algorithm to differentiate between benign and malignant breast tumors in ultrasound images without image annotation. Methods: We developed and validated the models using two publicly available datasets: breast ultrasound image (BUSI) and GDPH&SYSUCC breast ultrasound datasets. After removing the poor quality images, a total of 3049 images were included, divided into two classes: benign (N = 1320 images) and malignant (N = 1729 images). Weakly-supervised DL algorithms were implemented with four networks (DenseNet121, ResNet50, EffientNetb0, and Vision Transformer) and trained using 2136 unannotated breast ultrasound images. 609 and 304 images were used for validation and test sets, respectively. Diagnostic performances were calculated as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Using the class activation map to interpret the prediction results of weakly supervised DL algorithms. Results: The DenseNet121 model, utilizing complete image inputs without ROI annotations, demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast nodules when compared to ResNet50, EfficientNetb0, and Vision Transformer models. DenseNet121 achieved the highest AUC, with values of 0.94 on the validation set and 0.93 on the test set, significantly surpassing the performance of the other models across both datasets (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: The weakly supervised DenseNet121 model developed in this study demonstrated feasibility for ultrasound diagnosis of breast tumor and showed good capabilities in differential diagnosis. This model may help radiologists, especially novice doctors, to improve the accuracy of breast tumor diagnosis using ultrasound.
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.