ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Radiomics-based differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses on contrast-enhanced mammography: a reproducible workflow using open-source tools.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo differentiate benign and malignant breast masses by extracting radiomic features from low-energy and recombined contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiple machine learning classifiers.
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, 145 patients who underwent CEM between February 2019 and January 2022 were included. Radiomic features were extracted from manually segmented regions of interest on low-energy and recombined images using an open-source workflow (ITK-SNAP and PyRadiomics). The dataset was split at the patient level into a training set (75%) and an independent test set (25%); within the training set, feature selection and model optimization were performed using 10-fold cross-validation. Diagnostic performance [as measured by area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value] was reported on the held-out independent test set.
resultsEnsemble learning demonstrated the best performance for both image types. The highest accuracy and AUC were 91.8% and 0.978 for recombined images and 89.7% and 0.968 for low-energy images, respectively. For recombined images, ensemble learning yielded the highest sensitivity (91.8%), whereas neural networks achieved the highest specificity (95.8%). For low-energy images, ensemble learning reached the highest sensitivity (98.0%), and decision trees achieved the highest specificity (91.7%).
conclusionRadiomics analysis of CEM images can effectively differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses, potentially enhancing diagnostic accuracy in breast imaging. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A radiomics workflow based on recombined CEM images and open-source tools may complement conventional CEM interpretation, improve non-invasive lesion characterization, and support further research toward clinically validated decision-support applications.
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.