ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of deep learning architectures for breast region segmentation with a novel breast boundary proposal.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital twins for non-invasive tumor localization in breast-conserving surgery: a technical pilot study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Domain Shift in Breast DCE-MRI Tumor Segmentation: A Balanced LoCoCV Study on the MAMA-MIA Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep ensemble optimized models for probabilistic CTV breast segmentation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Optimizing YOLOv11 for automated classification of breast cancer in medical images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sustainable deep learning-based breast lesion segmentation: impact of breast region segmentation on performance.BMC medical imaging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.