ArticleScientific reports2025
The role of data augmentation and attention mechanisms in UNet and ConvNeXt architectures for optimizing breast tumor segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pyramid Xception network for accurate detection of abdominal abnormalities in CT scans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Application of transformer models in medical image segmentation: a narrative review.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of various configurations of the UNet + ConvNeXt Tiny architecture for breast tumor segmentation. We assess the influence of data augmentation, skip connections, attention mechanisms, and dropout rates on segmentation performance utilizing the BUSI dataset, subsequently conducting cross-dataset evaluation on the BUS-UCLM dataset. Our findings indicate that the integration of attention mechanisms markedly improves metrics including F1 score, precision, IoU, recall, and Dice coefficient. Data augmentation alone did not consistently enhance model performance and occasionally caused instability, however its integration with attention processes frequently resulted in significant improvements. Dropout was helpful in mitigating overfitting, with a rate of 0.5 consistently yielding enhanced generalization in both in-domain and cross-domain assessments, especially when combined with strategically positioned attention modules. Models using attention mechanisms and a dropout rate of 0.5 attained the optimal equilibrium between accuracy and recall, emphasizing the necessity of balancing regularization intensity with architectural intricacy. Nevertheless, our results underscore the potential for certain augmentation techniques-particularly those that employ aggressive geometric transformations-to distort anatomical structures in ultrasound images, resulting in a decline in the quality of segmentation. This highlights the necessity for meticulous, domain-specific selection of augmentation strategies in medical imaging. This study emphasizes the necessity for meticulous selection of architectural elements and regularization techniques to enhance medical image segmentation and offers direction for future investigations in resilient deep learning applications for clinical imaging.
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.