ArticleCurrent medical imaging2026
Application of YOLO-v7 and YOLO-v8 Transfer Learning Models in Breast Lesion Classification and Diagnosis
Article in Current medical imaging, 2026. 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.
- YOLO-SCC: A Lightweight Object Detection Method for Mine Safety.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A segmentation-guided CNN-Vision transformer feature fusion framework for multi-class breast ultrasound image classification.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of breast cancer and accurate assessment of lesions are key goals of imaging evaluation. Ultrasound is widely used, but its diagnostic performance is influenced by complex image features, noise, and operator experience. Reducing operator dependence and improving accuracy are critical clinical issues.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 7,025 breast ultrasound images from our center were annotated based on pathology and split into training, validation, and internal test sets (8:1:1). The Dataset of Breast Ultrasound Images was used as the external test set. YOLO-v7 and YOLO-v8 models were trained through transfer learning after data augmentation and balancing the classes. Performance was compared on internal and external test sets and was evaluated against a reader study.
resultsYOLO-v7 and YOLO-v8 reached optimal performance at epochs 294 and 135, respectively. YOLO-v7 slightly outperformed YOLO-v8 on the internal test set, while YOLO-v8 achieved higher accuracy, recall, specificity, precision, and F1 score on the external test set. Both models showed significantly higher accuracy, specificity, and precision than the senior radiologist, with YOLO-v8 achieving a significantly higher F1 score. DISCUSSION: YOLO-v8 demonstrated better generalization due to its anchor-free mechanism and deeper architecture, while YOLO-v7 showed signs of overfitting. Both models outperformed the junior radiologist and approached or exceeded the diagnostic performance of the senior radiologist, indicating potential to assist less experienced readers.
conclusionYOLO-v7 and YOLO-v8 effectively classified breast lesions. YOLO-v8 showed faster convergence and higher diagnostic efficiency, suggesting strong potential for clinical application.
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.