The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated Mass Detection in Mammograms Using Cascaded Deep Learning and Random Forests
Abstract
Mass detection from mammograms plays a crucial role as a pre- processing stage for mass segmentation and classification. The detection of masses from mammograms is considered to be a challenging problem due to their large variation in shape, size, boundary and texture and also because of their low signal to noise ratio compared to the surrounding breast tissue. In this paper, we present a novel approach for detecting masses in mammograms using a cascade of deep learning and random forest classifiers. The first stage classifier consists of a multi-scale deep belief network that selects suspicious regions to be further processed by a two-level cascade of deep convolutional neural networks. The regions that survive this deep learning analysis are then processed by a two-level cascade of random forest classifiers that use morphological and texture features extracted from regions selected along the cascade. Finally, regions that survive the cascade of random forest classifiers are combined using connected component analysis to produce state-of-the-art results. We also show that the proposed cascade of deep learning and random forest classifiers are effective in the reduction of false positive regions, while maintaining a high true positive detection rate. We tested our mass detection system on two publicly available datasets: DDSM-BCRP and INbreast. The final mass detection produced by our approach achieves the best results on these publicly available datasets with a true positive rate of 0.96 ± 0.03 at 1.2 false positive per image on INbreast and true positive rate of 0.75 at 4.8 false positive per image on DDSM-BCRP.
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
Cited by
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
Breast cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks and support vector machines
Ragab, D. A., Sharkas, M., Marshall, S., & Ren, J. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6201 · Cited by 513
Al-masni, M. A., Al-antari, M. A., Park, J.-M., Gi, G., Kim, T.-Y., Rivera, P., Valarezo, E., Choi, M.-T., Han, S.-M., & Kim, T.-S. (2018) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.017 · Cited by 482
Deep and machine learning techniques for medical imaging-based breast cancer: A comprehensive review
Houssein, E. H., Emam, M. M., Ali, A. A., & Suganthan, P. N. (2021) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114161 · Cited by 404
Melanoma detection by analysis of clinical images using convolutional neural network
Nasr-Esfahani, E., Samavi, S., Karimi, N., Soroushmehr, S. M. R., Jafari, M. H., Ward, K., & Najarian, K. (2016) · 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) · doi:10.1109/embc.2016.7590963 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., & Bradley, A. P.
- Venue
- 2015 International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-11
- Pages
- 1-8
- OpenAlex
- W2240965754
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.23
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: Automated Mass Detection in Mammograms Using Cascaded Deep Learning and Random Forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/dicta.2015.7371234
- The paper
- Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., & Bradley, A. P. (2015). Automated Mass Detection in Mammograms Using Cascaded Deep Learning and Random Forests. 2015 International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA). https://doi.org/10.1109/dicta.2015.7371234
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.