The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A deep learning approach for the analysis of masses in mammograms with minimal user intervention
Abstract
HighlightsWe introduce a novel automated CAD system with minimal user intervention that can detect, segment and classify breast masses from mammograms. We explore deep learning and structured output models for the design and development of the proposed CAD system. More specifically for the detection, we propose a cascade of deep learning methods to select hypotheses that are refined based on Bayesian optimization. For the segmentation, we propose the use of deep structured output learning that is subsequently refined by a level set method. Finally, for the classification, we propose a deep learning classifier that is pre‐trained with a regression to hand‐crafted feature values and fine‐tuned based on the annotations of the breast mass classification dataset. Our proposed CAD system produces the current state‐of‐the‐art detection, segmentation and classification results for the INbreast dataset. Graphical abstract Figure. No Caption available. Abstract We present an integrated methodology for detecting, segmenting and classifying breast masses from mammograms with minimal user intervention. This is a long standing problem due to low signal‐to‐noise ratio in the visualisation of breast masses, combined with their large variability in terms of shape, size, appearance and location. We break the problem down into three stages: mass detection, mass segmentation, and mass classification. For the detection, we propose a cascade of deep learning methods to select hypotheses that are refined based on Bayesian optimisation. For the segmentation, we propose the use of deep structured output learning that is subsequently refined by a level set method. Finally, for the classification, we propose the use of a deep learning classifier, which is pre‐trained with a regression to hand‐crafted feature values and fine‐tuned based on the annotations of the breast mass classification dataset. We test our proposed system on the publicly available INbreast dataset and compare the results with the current state‐of‐the‐art methodologies. This evaluation shows that our system detects 90% of masses at 1 false positive per image, has a segmentation accuracy of around 0.85 (Dice index) on the correctly detected masses, and overall classifies masses as malignant or benign with sensitivity (Se) of 0.98 and specificity (Sp) of 0.7.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
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
U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 · Cited by 99,404
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation
Long, J., Shelhamer, E., & Darrell, T. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298965 · Cited by 38,834
(2014) · Cited by 33,419
Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation
Girshick, R., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., & Malik, J. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.81 · Cited by 32,684
Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks
Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1127647 · Cited by 20,928
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
(2010) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 13,995
Cited by
Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine
Ching, T., Himmelstein, D. S., Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Kalinin, A. A., Do, B. T., Way, G. P., Ferrero, E., Agapow, P.-M., Zietz, M., Hoffman, M. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0387 · Cited by 2,310
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
A Deep Learning Model to Predict a Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease by Using 18 F-FDG PET of the Brain
Ding, Y., Sohn, J. H., Kawczynski, M. G., Trivedi, H., Harnish, R., Jenkins, N. W., Lituiev, D., Copeland, T. P., Aboian, M. S., Mari Aparici, C., et al. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180958 · Cited by 577
Artificial intelligence in oncology
Shimizu, H., & Nakayama, K. I. (2020) · Cancer Science · doi:10.1111/cas.14377 · Cited by 388
Murtaza, G., Shuib, L., Abdul Wahab, A. W., Mujtaba, G., Mujtaba, G., Nweke, H. F., Al-garadi, M. A., Zulfiqar, F., Raza, G., & Azmi, N. A. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-019-09716-5 · Cited by 342
Metadata
- Authors
- Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., & Bradley, A. P.
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 37
- Pages
- 114-128
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2580480204
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 20.83
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A deep learning approach for the analysis of masses in mammograms with minimal user intervention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.media.2017.01.009
- The paper
- Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., & Bradley, A. P. (2017). A deep learning approach for the analysis of masses in mammograms with minimal user intervention. Medical Image Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.01.009
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.