ArticleResearch square2025
Generative AI-Enhanced Microcalcification Detection in Full-Field Digital Mammography: Reducing False Positives with High Sensitivity.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While generative AI shows promise across industries, its advantages over state-of-the-art segmentation AI in radiology remain unclear. This study addresses this gap by developing a generative AI model to refine calcification detection in full-field digital mammograms (FFDM), improving specificity while maintaining high sensitivity. A segmentation AI initially extracted calcification pixels, achieving 98.0% sensitivity but a low positive predictive value (PPV) of 3.2%. To enhance detection, our generative AI used the segmentation AI output as a structural prior, transforming calcification-positive pixels into calcification-free pixels and generating a corrected result by subtraction. Trained on true calcification-free regions, it categorized densities within and around each calcification as interior or exterior. Our approach improved PPV by 2.28-fold (from 3.2% to 7.3%), surpassing prior generative AI models by 146-fold (from 0.05% to 7.3%), while maintaining sensitivity above 95%. It also reduced patient-level detection errors for small calcifications (5.17-fold, from 27.43% to 5.31%), high-exterior density (4.20-fold, from 53.85% to 12.82%), and low-interior density (2.89-fold, from 63.95% to 22.09%). This study serves as a seminal reference, demonstrating generative AI's radiological significance beyond the latest segmentation models, with potential to redefine screening accuracy and generate high-fidelity virtual normal FFDM references.
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.