ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning prediction of mammographic breast density using screening data.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Head-to-head comparisons of breast density assessment models using deep learning on digital and synthetic mammograms.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2026Article
- Different BI-RADS breast cancer diagnosis using MobileNetV1 and vision transformer based on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optimizing YOLOv11 for automated classification of breast cancer in medical images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated a series of deep learning (DL) models for the objective assessment of four categories of mammographic breast density (e.g., fatty, scattered, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense). A retrospective analysis was conducted using data collected from Taizhou Cancer Hospital over a period from January 2015 to December 2020. The dataset included mammograms from 9,621 women, totaling 57,282 images. The dataset was divided into training, validation, and test sets at a ratio of 7:2:1. Four DL models were employed, with Average Precision (AP) served as the primary evaluation metric. Additionally, the diagnostic performance of the DL models was compared with that of radiologists. Finally, we conducted validation of our model using an external test set. Among the DL models studied, InceptionV3 performed best, with AP values of 0.895 for almost entirely fatty, 0.857 for scattered fibroglandular tissue, 0.953 for heterogeneously dense, and 0.952 for extremely dense categories. The InceptionV3 model outperformed radiologists in accuracy and consistency. While radiologists surpassed the InceptionV3 model in fatty and scattered categories, their accuracy dropped significantly in heterogeneously and extremely dense categories. Nevertheless, our study demonstrated that DL can serve as a valuate tool in assisting radiologists with the objective quantification of breast density.
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.