Cited by 253AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Breast mass classification in sonography with transfer learning using a deep convolutional neural network and color conversion

Open access
Byra, Michal, Galperin, Michael, Ojeda‐Fournier, Haydee, Olson, Linda, O'Boyle, Mary, Comstock, Christopher, Andre, Michael·2019·Medical Physics

Abstract

Purpose: We propose a deep learning‐based approach to breast mass classification in sonography and compare it with the assessment of four experienced radiologists employing breast imaging reporting and data system 4th edition lexicon and assessment protocol. Methods: Several transfer learning techniques are employed to develop classifiers based on a set of 882 ultrasound images of breast masses. Additionally, we introduce the concept of a matching layer. The aim of this layer is to rescale pixel intensities of the grayscale ultrasound images and convert those images to red, green, blue (RGB) to more efficiently utilize the discriminative power of the convolutional neural network pretrained on the ImageNet dataset. We present how this conversion can be determined during fine‐tuning using back‐propagation. Next, we compare the performance of the transfer learning techniques with and without the color conversion. To show the usefulness of our approach, we additionally evaluate it using two publicly available datasets. Results: Color conversion increased the areas under the receiver operating curve for each transfer learning method. For the better‐performing approach utilizing the fine‐tuning and the matching layer, the area under the curve was equal to 0.936 on a test set of 150 cases. The areas under the curves for the radiologists reading the same set of cases ranged from 0.806 to 0.882. In the case of the two separate datasets, utilizing the proposed approach we achieved areas under the curve of around 0.890. Conclusions: The concept of the matching layer is generalizable and can be used to improve the overall performance of the transfer learning techniques using deep convolutional neural networks. When fully developed as a clinical tool, the methods proposed in this paper have the potential to help radiologists with breast mass classification in ultrasound.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.13361

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [22]Yap MH, Goyal M, Osman F, End-to-end breast ultrasound lesions recognition with a deep learning approach. In: Medical Imaging 2018: Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging. Vol 10578.; 2018: 1057819.
  2. [35]Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, TensorFlow: A System for Large-Scale Machine Learning. In: OSDI. Vol 16.; 2016: 265– 283.
  3. [37]Zheng L, Zhao Y, Wang S, Wang J, Tian Q. Good practice in CNN feature transfer. arXiv Prepr arXiv 160400133. 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byra, M., Galperin, M., Ojeda‐Fournier, H., Olson, L., O'Boyle, M., Comstock, C., & Andre, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Radiology University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla CA 92093 USA
  • Almen Laboratories (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-16
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
746-755
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2906785117
Cited by
253
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 13
FWCI
12.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
breast mass classification, breast ultrasound, transfer learning, color conversion, matching layer, fine-tuning, BI-RADS lexicon, radiologist comparison, computer-aided diagnosis
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Color, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, ROC Curve, Ultrasonography, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review