Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40868399›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Improving Benign and Malignant Classifications in Mammography with ROI-Stratified Deep Learning.

Kenji Yoshitsugu, Kazumasa Kishimoto, Tadamasa Takemura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Kenji YoshitsuguGraduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, 7-1-28 Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe-shi 650-0047, Hyogo, Japan.ORCID 0009-0009-2370-3183
Kazumasa KishimotoDivision of Medical Information Technology and Administration Planning, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaramachi, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku 606-8507, Kyoto, Japan.
Tadamasa TakemuraGraduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, 7-1-28 Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe-shi 650-0047, Hyogo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning has achieved widespread adoption for medical image diagnosis, with extensive research dedicated to mammographic image analysis for breast cancer screening. This study investigates the hypothesis that incorporating region-of-interest (ROI) mask information for individual mammographic images during deep learning can improve the accuracy of benign/malignant diagnoses. Swin Transformer and ConvNeXtV2 deep learning models were used to evaluate their performance on the public VinDr and CDD-CESM datasets. Our approach involved stratifying mammographic images based on the presence or absence of ROI masks, performing independent training and prediction for each subgroup, and subsequently merging the results. Baseline prediction metrics (sensitivity, specificity, F-score, and accuracy) without ROI-stratified separation were the following: VinDr/Swin Transformer (0.00, 1.00, 0.00, 0.85), VinDr/ConvNeXtV2 (0.00, 1.00, 0.00, 0.85), CDD-CESM/Swin Transformer (0.29, 0.68, 0.41, 0.48), and CDD-CESM/ConvNeXtV2 (0.65, 0.65, 0.65, 0.65). Subsequent analysis with ROI-stratified separation demonstrated marked improvements in these metrics: VinDr/Swin Transformer (0.93, 0.87, 0.90, 0.87), VinDr/ConvNeXtV2 (0.90, 0.86, 0.88, 0.87), CDD-CESM/Swin Transformer (0.65, 0.65, 0.65, 0.65), and CDD-CESM/ConvNeXtV2 (0.74, 0.61, 0.67, 0.68). These findings provide compelling evidence that validate our hypothesis and affirm the utility of considering ROI mask information for enhanced diagnostic accuracy in mammography.

Indexed as

deep learningmammographyregion of interest

Identifiers

PMID40868399
PMCPMC12383514

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.