ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Impact of differential privacy on breast ultrasound image classification performance using vision transformer.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast ultrasound images contain highly sensitive anatomical and diagnostic information. Deep learning (DL) classifiers trained on such data can inadvertently memorize patient-specific features, creating privacy leakage even when identifiers are removed. Differential privacy (DP) offers a mathematically rigorous bind on this leakage, yet the scarcity of public breast ultrasound datasets and their markedly different imaging characteristics mean that the impact of DP on diagnostic accuracy remains insufficiently quantified. We therefore conducted a systematic experimental assessment of the privacy-utility trade-off to generate parameter-specific evidence for clinical deployment. Methods: We curated a 2,149-image breast ultrasound dataset (1,289 benign, 860 malignant) from Roboflow, split 70%/20%/10% for training/validation/testing. After ImageNet pre-training, we compared three backbones-ResNet50, EfficientNet-B0, and ViT-B/16-by fine-tuning only the last layer for 100 epochs and selecting the best performer. Opacus was then applied to the top-ranked model (ViT-B/16) across 12 (ε, δ) configurations (ε values: 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10; δ values: 1e-5, 1e-3, 0.1), with each repeated 10 times. Accuracy, F1-score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were evaluated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Without DP, ViT-B/16 achieved 94.9% accuracy, 93.4% F1, and 99.2% AUC-ROC. Introducing DP produced a clear monotonic privacy-utility trade-off: performance declined as ε decreased. At ε=10, δ=1×10 Conclusions: Our systematic evaluation demonstrates that DP can be integrated into breast ultrasound classification while maintaining quantifiable privacy guarantees. Selecting ε≥1 and δ=0.1 preserves diagnostic accuracy close to the non-private baseline and provides a practical reference for privacy-preserving clinical deployment.
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.