ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Convolutional neural network model observers discount signal-like anatomical structures during search in virtual digital breast tomosynthesis phantoms.
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.
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.
- Dependence of observer task on conclusions drawn fromJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We aim to assess the perceptual tasks in which convolutional neural networks (CNNs) might be better tools than commonly used linear model observers (LMOs) to evaluate medical image quality. Approach: We compared the LMOs (channelized Hotelling [CHO] and frequency convolution channels observers [FCO]) and CNN detection accuracies for tasks with a few possible signal locations (location known exactly) and for the search for mass and microcalcification signals embedded in 2D/3D breast tomosynthesis phantoms. We also compared the LMOs and CNN accuracies to those of radiologists in the search tasks. We analyzed radiologists' eye position to assess whether they fixate longer at locations considered suspicious by the LMOs or those by the CNN. Results: LMOs resulted in similar detection accuracies [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)] to the CNN for tasks with up to 100 signal locations but lower accuracies in the search task for microcalcification and mass 3D images. Radiologists' AUC was significantly higher ( Conclusion: We show that CNNs are a more suitable model observer for search tasks. Like radiologists but not traditional LMOs, CNNs can discount false positives arising from anatomical backgrounds.
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.