ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cross-Sensor and Cross-Population Generalization of Deep Learning Models for Digital Mammography: A Controlled Four-Country Benchmark of Five Backbone Architectures with Statistical Significance Testing.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDeep learning models for digital mammography sensor data are increasingly deployed across hospitals using different X-ray detector technologies and patient populations. Whether models trained on one sensor platform and population maintain accuracy when transferred to another has not been tested for the latest generation of mammography-specific foundation models under one controlled protocol.
methodsWe fine-tuned five backbone architectures (ResNet-50, DINOv2-B14, Rad-DINO, Mammo-CLIP B5, and Mammo-FM) on CBIS-DDSM (film-digitized, USA,
resultsWithin this single-source three-seed evaluation, ResNet-50 outperformed all four foundation models on CBIS-DDSM (AUC 0.867 vs. 0.847, 0.846, 0.813, and 0.703; all gaps
conclusionsIn this single training-source, three-seed protocol, mammography-specific pretraining did not deliver the in-distribution AUC premium reported in the originating papers, and no architecture reached a level at which transfer deployment without local validation would be defensible. We frame these as observations specific to the present protocol rather than as broader conclusions about foundation models for mammography classification. The findings argue for sensor-stratified and population-stratified external validation and for local recalibration as practical prerequisites before clinical use. Code and weights are released under MIT license.
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.