ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026
Head-to-head comparisons of breast density assessment models using deep learning on digital and synthetic mammograms.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We aim to evaluate the performance of different deep learning (DL) architectures in breast density classification using digital mammograms (DMs) and synthetic mammograms (SMs) from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Approach: We retrospectively analyzed routine mammographic screening exams (Selenia Dimensions, Hologic Inc.) acquired between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Each mammogram dataset (DM and SM) included 10,000 exams representing all four breast imaging reporting and data system density categories (a to d). We used ResNet-50, EfficientNet-B0, and DenseNet-121 architectures, separately fine-tuned for breast density classification with DM and SM. Classification accuracy was assessed on 10% unseen test sets in four-category (a to d) and binary (nondense versus dense) scenarios. Evaluations also considered mammogram view (craniocaudal [CC] versus mediolateral-oblique [MLO] view) and race (White versus Black women). Results: DL architectures showed detectable, yet small, differences in classification accuracy regardless of mammogram format. ResNet-50 achieved a four-category accuracy of 0.727 (95% CI: [0.713, 0.740]) for DM, higher than 0.713 (95% CI: [0.699, 0.728]) for SM ( Conclusions: We highlight that various DL architectures perform effectively in breast density classification, emphasizing the significance of mammogram format and view, though results may vary with different vendors. These insights are crucial for enhancing DL-based breast density assessment, especially during the shift from DM to DBT.
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.