ArticleScientific reports2025
The impact of pre-processing techniques on deep learning breast image segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer worldwide, making breast imaging a critical area for developing and evaluating Deep Learning methods. In this study, we investigate how different pre-processing techniques influence model performance in breast image segmentation. Pre-processing is a crucial step in the Deep Learning pipeline that directly impacts model performance, yet studies on its role in medical imaging remain limited. We assess the influence of different pre-processing techniques on a U-Net segmentation model applied to two breast public imaging datasets: CBIS-DDSM and Duke-Breast-Cancer-MRI. We systematically explored commonly used methods, including pixel intensity normalization, spacing harmonization, resizing/padding, and orientation standardization. Two processing pipelines were developed: Domain Non-Specific, integrating standard practices from natural and medical image analysis, and Domain Specific, which preserves anatomical information through careful handling of breast imaging metadata. A detailed comparative analysis of each pre-processing technique was conducted to evaluate its impact on model performance. Despite challenges and limitations associated with dataset size and scope, our findings identify pre-processing strategies tailored for breast imaging that can improve segmentation accuracy and analysis. This study represents an initial step in evaluating pre-processing for medical image analysis, providing a foundation for future work. Our results highlight significant differences in a 3-way ANOVA F-test ([Formula: see text]) for U-Net segmentation outcomes, attributed to different pixel intensity normalization approaches, offering valuable insights for future research.
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.