The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Ultrasound Image Discrimination between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses Based on a Neural Network Approach
Abstract
The discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses in ultrasound images represents one of the most challenging problems in gynecologic practice. In the study described here, a new method for automatic discrimination of adnexal masses based on a neural networks approach was tested. The proposed method first calculates seven different types of characteristics (local binary pattern, fractal dimension, entropy, invariant moments, gray level co-occurrence matrix, law texture energy and Gabor wavelet) from ultrasound images of the ovary, from which several features are extracted and collected together with the clinical patient age. The proposed technique was validated using 106 benign and 39 malignant images obtained from 145 patients, corresponding to its probability of appearance in general population. On evaluation of the classifier, an accuracy of 98.78%, sensitivity of 98.50%, specificity of 98.90% and area under the curve of 0.997 were calculated.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Aramendía-Vidaurreta et al. was the only group to investigate the automated discrimination of benign and malignant masses in 3D US images.
“Aramendía-Vidaurreta et al. was the only group to investigate the automated discrimination of benign and malignant masses in 3D US images [187]”
Automated discrimination between benign and malignant tumors was a predominant focus of the current research, represented in six included studies.
“Enabling an automated discrimination between benign and malignant tumors was a predominant focus of the current research, represented in six studies included [185,186,187,188,189,190].”
Small sample sizes not sufficient enough to train the algorithm was a frequent limitation.
“small sample sizes not sufficient enough to train the algorithm [184,185,187,188,192,193].”
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Aramendía-Vidaurreta, V., Cabeza, R., Villanueva, A., Navallas, J., & Alcázar, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) (ES)
- Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 742-752
- ISSN
- 0301-5629 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2233192390
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- adnexal mass, benign versus malignant differentiation, ovarian neoplasms, gynecologic ultrasound, texture features, local binary pattern, fractal dimension, gray level co-occurrence matrix, moment invariants, Gabor wavelets, entropy (information theory), neural network classifier, computer-aided diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adnexal Diseases, Adult, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer
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