Cited by 225AI in cancer detectionMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

Vision Transformers for Classification of Breast Ultrasound Images

Gheflati, Behnaz, Rivaz, Hassan·2022·2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)

Abstract

Medical ultrasound (US) imaging has become a prominent modality for breast cancer imaging due to its ease of use, low cost, and safety. In the past decade, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have emerged as the method of choice in vision applications and have shown excellent potential in the automatic classification of US images. Despite their success, their restricted local receptive field limits their ability to learn global context information. Recently, Vision Transformer (ViT) designs, based on self-attention between image patches, have shown great potential to be an alternative to CNNs. In this study, for the first time, we utilize ViT to classify breast US images using different augmentation strategies. We also adopted a weighted cross-entropy loss function since breast ultrasound datasets are often imbalanced. The results are provided as classification accuracy and Area Under the Curve (AUC) metrics, and the performance is compared with the SOTA CNNs. The results indicate that the ViT models have comparable efficiency with or even better than the CNNs in the classification of US breast images. Clinical relevance- This work shows the potential of Vision Transformers in the automatic classification of masses in breast ultrasound, which helps clinicians diagnose and make treatment decisions more precisely.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/embc48229.2022.9871809

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most works in medical image classification jointly adopt CNN and transformer but did not develop a transformer-based backbone without convolutions to capture multi-granularity information in medical images.

    “Most works [30 -34] in medical image classi fi cation jointly adopt the CNN and transformer model but did not develop a transformer-based backbone without convolutions to capture multi-granularity information in medical images.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gheflati, B., & Rivaz, H.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-07-11
Volume
2022
Pages
480-483
ISSN
2375-7477 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4294975187
Cited by
225
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 16 · 2012: 1
FWCI
27.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
vision transformer, breast ultrasound, breast cancer, mass classification, self-attention, data augmentation, class imbalance, weighted cross-entropy loss, CNN comparison, automated diagnosis
MeSH terms
Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Ultrasonography, Ultrasonography, Mammary, 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