ArticleMedicine2025
Comparative analysis of convolutional neural networks and vision transformers in identifying benign and malignant breast lesions.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Self-supervised learning and transformer-based technologies in breast cancer imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Various deep learning models have been developed and employed for medical image classification. This study conducted comprehensive experiments on 12 models, aiming to establish reliable benchmarks for research on breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging image classification. Twelve deep learning models were systematically compared by analyzing variations in 4 key hyperparameters: optimizer (Op), learning rate, batch size (BS), and data augmentation. The evaluation criteria encompassed a comprehensive set of metrics including accuracy (Ac), loss value, precision, recall rate, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Furthermore, the training times and model parameter counts were assessed for holistic performance comparison. Adjustments in the BS within Adam Op had a minimal impact on Ac in the convolutional neural network models. However, altering the Op and learning rate while maintaining the same BS significantly affected the Ac. The ResNet152 network model exhibited the lowest Ac. Both the recall rate and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the ResNet152 and Vision transformer-base (ViT) models were inferior compared to the others. Data augmentation unexpectedly reduced the Ac of ResNet50, ResNet152, VGG16, VGG19, and ViT models. The VGG16 model boasted the shortest training duration, whereas the ViT model, before data augmentation, had the longest training time and smallest model weight. The ResNet152 and ViT models were not well suited for image classification tasks involving small breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging datasets. Although data augmentation is typically beneficial, its application should be approached cautiously. These findings provide important insights to inform and refine future research in this domain.
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.