ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Optimizing breast cancer ultrasound diagnosis: a comparative study of AI model performance and image resolution.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the optimal combination of artificial intelligence (AI) models and ultrasound (US) image resolutions for breast cancer diagnosis and evaluate whether this combination surpasses the diagnostic accuracy of senior radiologists. Materials and methods: We systematically compared lightweight (MobileNet, Xception) and dense neural networks (ResNet50, DenseNet121) using three image resolutions (224 × 224, 320 × 320, 448 × 448 pixels). A retrospective cohort of 4,998 patients was divided into training/validation (8:2 ratio, Results: MobileNet with 224 × 224 input achieved the highest AUC (0.924, 95% CI: 0.910-0.938) and accuracy (87.3%) outperforming senior US (AUC: 0.820, accuracy: 79.1%) and mammography doctors (AUC: 0.819, accuracy: 83.6%) (p < 0.05). After excluding BI-RADS 4c and 5 nodules, the diagnostic efficacy of MobileNet_224 is better than that of senior doctors (p < 0.05), can reduce 60.1% false positives of US, and 46.6% of mammography. MobileNet_224 and MobileNet_320 had the fastest analysis speed. Conclusion: MobileNet_224 represents a novel, efficient AI framework for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrating superior accuracy and speed compared to both complex AI models and experienced clinicians. This work highlights the critical role of optimizing model architecture and resolution to enhance diagnostic workflows and reduce unnecessary biopsies.
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.