ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Hybrid metaheuristic feature selection for breast cancer detection in digital mammography: a radiomics and deep learning pilot feasibility study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) can improve breast cancer detection in mammography, but high-dimensional feature spaces and feature-selection instability remain challenging. This study developed a hybrid metaheuristic feature-selection framework that combines radiomics and deep learning features and evaluated its methodological feasibility on a small real mammography pilot and a controlled synthetic comparison designed to test behavior under collapse-prone conditions.
methodsUsing the public CBIS-DDSM dataset, 2,051 Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI)-compliant radiomic features and 2,048-dimensional deep features from a pretrained, non-fine-tuned EfficientNet-B5 model were extracted for each lesion region of interest (ROI). A hybrid Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm and Crow Search Algorithm (GOA-CSA) with a proposed multi-constraint fitness function was used to select an optimal feature subset for a multilayer perceptron (MLP) classifier. Performance was assessed on a small CBIS-DDSM pilot subset (n = 22, 5-fold stratified cross-validation) and on a synthetic dataset (N = 16, D = 1114) designed to compare the proposed fitness against a legacy fitness under collapse-prone conditions.
resultsOn the CBIS-DDSM pilot, the hybrid GOA-CSA model selected an average of 486 features, achieving a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.750 ± 0.433 and sensitivity of 0.433 ± 0.435, compared with an all-features baseline AUC of 0.900 ± 0.224 and sensitivity of 0.667 ± 0.471. In the synthetic comparison, the proposed fitness achieved an AUC of 0.810 ± 0.115 and sensitivity of 0.571 ± 0.198 versus 0.476 ± 0.210 and 0.286 ± 0.241, respectively, for the legacy fitness. The collapse-prevention penalty was implemented but was not empirically triggered in this pilot because both models maintained non-zero sensitivity.
conclusionsThis pilot feasibility study demonstrates that the hybrid GOA-CSA framework can successfully identify compact feature subsets combining radiomic and deep features. The results are exploratory and hypothesis-generating, and the small real-data sample size limits definitive performance evaluation. The synthetic experiment supports the conceptual value of the multi-constraint fitness design, but the collapse-prevention penalty remains empirically unvalidated on real mammography data. External validation on independent cohorts such as VinDr-Mammo remains a crucial subject for future work.
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.