Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087354›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparative analysis of deep learning architectures for breast region segmentation with a novel breast boundary proposal.

Sam Narimani, Solveig Roth Hoff, Kathinka Dæhli Kurz, Kjell-Inge Gjesdal, Jürgen Geisler, Endre Grøvik

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Sam NarimaniDepartment of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. sam.narimania@gmail.com.
Solveig Roth HoffDepartment of Radiology, More og Romsdal Hospital Trust, Aalesund, Norway.
Kathinka Dæhli KurzDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Kjell-Inge GjesdalDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Akershus University Hospital, Lorenskog, Norway.
Jürgen GeislerInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Lorenskog, Norway.
Endre GrøvikDepartment of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentation of the breast region in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is essential for the automatic measurement of breast density and the quantitative analysis of imaging findings. This study aims to compare various deep learning methods to enhance whole breast segmentation and reduce computational costs as well as environmental effect for future research. We collected fifty-nine DCE-MRI scans from Stavanger University Hospital and, after preprocessing, analyzed fifty-eight scans. The preprocessing steps involved standardizing imaging protocols and resampling slices to ensure consistent volume across all patients. Using our novel approach, we defined new breast boundaries and generated corresponding segmentation masks. We evaluated seven deep learning models for segmentation namely UNet, UNet++, DenseNet, FCNResNet50, FCNResNet101, DeepLabv3ResNet50, and DeepLabv3ResNet101. To ensure robust model validation, we employed 10-fold cross-validation, dividing the dataset into ten subsets, training on nine, and validating on the remaining one, rotating this process to use all subsets for validation. The models demonstrated significant potential across multiple metrics. UNet++ achieved the highest performance in Dice score, while UNet excelled in validation and generalizability. FCNResNet50, notable for its lower carbon footprint and reasonable inference time, emerged as a robust model following UNet++. In boundary detection, both UNet and UNet++ outperformed other models, with DeepLabv3ResNet also delivering competitive results.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsDeep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedBreast regionDCE-MRIDeep learning methodsSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID40087354
PMCPMC11909121

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.