Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41315645›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Deep learning-based classification of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications in mammography.

Wei-Chung Shia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 author.

Wei-Chung ShiaLaboratory of Molecular and Surgical Research, Department of Research, Changhua Christian Hospital, 8F., No. 235, XuGuang Road, Changhua, Taiwan. weichung.shia@gmail.com.

Funding

Department of Research at Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan 114-CCH-IRP-063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The classification of malignant versus benign microcalcifications in mammograms remains a critical yet challenging task in breast cancer screening. Deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks, have demonstrated promising results; however, few studies have systematically compared different architectures within this domain. We evaluated the classification performance of two ResNet variants (ResNet-50 and ResNet-101) and five EfficientNet models (B0 to B4) using a five-fold cross-validation framework on 3,674 mammographic slices labelled with BI-RADS 1-2 or 5-6. Performance metrics included accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), and weighted F1-score. We further applied pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to assess the statistical significance of differences between the models. All EfficientNet models significantly outperformed the ResNet variants in terms of the F1 score (p < 0.05). Among the EfficientNet models, although B3 achieved the highest overall metrics, (accuracy = 86.9%, AUC = 0.998, weighted F1 = 0.869), the performance differences within the EfficientNet group were not statistically significant. EfficientNet-B0 provided comparable performance with much faster inference time. EfficientNet models exhibit superior performance compared to traditional ResNet architectures in the classification of mammographic calcifications. While B3 demonstrated slightly superior performance, B0 may provide a more favourable trade-off between accuracy and inference efficiency. These findings support the integration of lightweight EfficientNet variants into real-world diagnostic workflows.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCalcinosisDeep LearningMammographyArea Under CurveBreastFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerComputer-aided diagnosisDeep residual networkFeature interpretabilityGrad-CAMMammographyTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID41315645
PMCPMC12663291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.