The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The automatic classification of breast imaging lesions is currently an unsolved problem. This paper describes an innovative representation learning framework for breast cancer diagnosis in mammography that integrates deep learning techniques to automatically learn discriminative features avoiding the design of specific hand-crafted image-based feature detectors. METHODS A new biopsy proven benchmarking dataset was built from 344 breast cancer patients' cases containing a total of 736 film mammography (mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal) views, representative of manually segmented lesions associated with masses: 426 benign lesions and 310 malignant lesions. The developed method comprises two main stages: (i) preprocessing to enhance image details and (ii) supervised training for learning both the features and the breast imaging lesions classifier. In contrast to previous works, we adopt a hybrid approach where convolutional neural networks are used to learn the representation in a supervised way instead of designing particular descriptors to explain the content of mammography images. RESULTS Experimental results using the developed benchmarking breast cancer dataset demonstrated that our method exhibits significant improved performance when compared to state-of-the-art image descriptors, such as histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) and histogram of the gradient divergence (HGD), increasing the performance from 0.787 to 0.822 in terms of the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Interestingly, this model also outperforms a set of hand-crafted features that take advantage of additional information from segmentation by the radiologist. Finally, the combination of both representations, learned and hand-crafted, resulted in the best descriptor for mass lesion classification, obtaining 0.826 in the AUC score. CONCLUSIONS A novel deep learning based framework to automatically address classification of breast mass lesions in mammography was developed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
DeCAF: A Deep Convolutional Activation Feature for Generic Visual Recognition
Donahue, J., Jia, Y., Vinyals, O., Hoffman, J., Zhang, N., Tzeng, E., & Darrell, T. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.1531 · Cited by 4,019
Deep Learning: Methods and Applications
Deng, L., & Yu, D. (2014) · Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing · doi:10.1561/2000000039 · Cited by 3,480
What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition?
Jarrett, K., Kavukcuoglu, K., Ranzato, M. A., & LeCun, Y. (2009) · 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2009.5459469 · Cited by 2,153
Theano: new features and speed improvements
Bastien, F., Lamblin, P., Pascanu, R., Bergstra, J., Goodfellow, I., Bergeron, A., Bouchard, N., Warde-Farley, D., & Bengio, Y. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.5590 · Cited by 1,005
Hierarchical Feature Representation and Multimodal Fusion with Deep Learning for AD/MCI Diagnosis
Suk, H.-I., Lee, S.-W., & Shen, D. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.077 · Cited by 968 · cited 1×
“[14] H.”
Deep Feature Learning for Knee Cartilage Segmentation Using a Triplanar Convolutional Neural Network
Prasoon, A., Petersen, K., Igel, C., Lauze, F., Dam, E., & Nielsen, M. (2013) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40763-5_31 · Cited by 582
Cruz-Roa, A. A., Arevalo Ovalle, J. E., Madabhushi, A., & González Osorio, F. A. (2013) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40763-5_50 · Cited by 403
Cited by
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., van Ginneken, B., & Sánchez, C. I. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 · Cited by 15,332
Deep Learning for Medical Image Processing: Overview, Challenges and the Future
Razzak, M. I., Naz, S., & Zaib, A. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65981-7_12 · Cited by 1,248
Convolutional neural networks in medical image understanding: a survey
Sarvamangala, D. R., & Kulkarni, R. V. (2022) · Evolutionary Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s12065-020-00540-3 · Cited by 917
Deep Learning to Improve Breast Cancer Detection on Screening Mammography
Shen, L., Margolies, L. R., Rothstein, J. H., Fluder, E., McBride, R., & Sieh, W. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-48995-4 · Cited by 873
Applications of deep learning and reinforcement learning to biological data
Mahmud, M., Kaiser, M. S., Hussain, A., & Vassanelli, S. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2018.2790388 · Cited by 765
Metadata
- Authors
- Arevalo, J., González, F. A., Ramos-Pollán, R., Oliveira, J. L., & Guevara Lopez, M. A.
- Venue
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 127
- Pages
- 248-257
- ISSN
- 0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2284539364
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 43.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.