Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40302983›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025

Impact of synthetic data on training a deep learning model for lesion detection and classification in contrast-enhanced mammography.

Astrid Van Camp, Henry C Woodruff, Lesley Cockmartin, Marc Lobbes, Michael Majer, Corinne Balleyguier, Nicholas W Marshall, Hilde Bosmans, Philippe Lambin

Abstract 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. 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Introduction to the JMI Special Issue on Advances in Breast Imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Astrid Van CampMaastricht University, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Department of Precision Medicine, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-9755
Henry C WoodruffMaastricht University, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Department of Precision Medicine, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-5123
Lesley CockmartinUZ Leuven, Department of Radiology, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2449-5872
Marc LobbesZuyderland Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Michael MajerUniversité Paris Saclay, Institut Gustave Roussy, Department of Imaging, Villejuif, France.
Corinne BalleyguierUniversité Paris Saclay, Institut Gustave Roussy, Department of Imaging, Villejuif, France.
Nicholas W MarshallKU Leuven, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5549-5133
Hilde BosmansKU Leuven, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9694-510X
Philippe LambinMaastricht University, GROW - Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Department of Precision Medicine, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Predictive models for contrast-enhanced mammography often perform better at detecting and classifying enhancing masses than (non-enhancing) microcalcification clusters. We aim to investigate whether incorporating synthetic data with simulated microcalcification clusters during training can enhance model performance. Approach: Microcalcification clusters were simulated in low-energy images of lesion-free breasts from 782 patients, considering local texture features. Enhancement was simulated in the corresponding recombined images. A deep learning (DL) model for lesion detection and classification was trained with varying ratios of synthetic and real (850 patients) data. In addition, a handcrafted radiomics classifier was trained using delineations and class labels from real data, and predictions from both models were ensembled. Validation was performed on internal (212 patients) and external (279 patients) real datasets. Results: The DL model trained exclusively with synthetic data detected over 60% of malignant lesions. Adding synthetic data to smaller real training sets improved detection sensitivity for malignant lesions but decreased precision. Performance plateaued at a detection sensitivity of 0.80. The ensembled DL and radiomics models performed worse than the standalone DL model, decreasing the area under this receiver operating characteristic curve from 0.75 to 0.60 on the external validation set, likely due to falsely detected suspicious regions of interest. Conclusions: Synthetic data can enhance DL model performance, provided model setup and data distribution are optimized. The possibility to detect malignant lesions without real data present in the training set confirms the utility of synthetic data. It can serve as a helpful tool, especially when real data are scarce, and it is most effective when complementing real data.

Indexed as

contrast-enhanced mammographydeep learningmicrocalcification clusterradiomicssynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID40302983
PMCPMC12036226

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.