ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning-based classification of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications in mammography.
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.
- Radiomic Characterization of Breast Tissue from Breast CT Images Obtained with Synchrotron Beams.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Classification of BI-RADS 4 and BI-RADS 5 Microcalcifications in Mammography Combined with DCE-MRI for Malignant-Benign Discrimination.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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
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.