The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Concentric Morphology Model for the Detection of Masses in Mammography
Abstract
We propose a technique for the automated detection of malignant masses in screening mammography. The technique is based on the presence of concentric layers surrounding a focal area with suspicious morphological characteristics and low relative incidence in the breast region. Mammographic locations with high concentration of concentric layers with progressively lower average intensity are considered suspicious deviations from normal parenchyma. The multiple concentric layers (MCLs) technique was trained and tested using the craniocaudal views of 270 mammographic cases with biopsy proven malignant masses from the digital database of screening mammography. One-half of the available cases were used for optimizing the parameters of the detection algorithm. The remaining cases were used for testing. During testing, malignant masses were detected with 92%, 88%, and 81% sensitivity at 5.4, 2.4, and 0.6 false positive marks per image. Testing on 82 normal screening mammograms showed a false positive rate of 5.0, 1.7, and 0.2 marks per image at the previously reported operating points. Furthermore, additional evaluation on 135 benign cases produced a significantly lower detection rate for benign masses (61.6%, 58.3%, and 43.7% at 5.1, 2.8, and 1.2 false positives per image, respectively). Overall, MCL is a promising computer-assisted detection strategy for screening mammograms to identify malignant masses while maintaining the detection rate of benign masses considerably lower.
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
Cited by
Cancer Diagnosis Using Deep Learning: A Bibliographic Review
Munir, K., Elahi, H., Ayub, A., Frezza, F., & Rizzi, A. (2019) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers11091235 · Cited by 422
A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images
Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Martí, J., Pérez, E., Pont, J., Denton, E. R. E., & Zwiggelaar, R. (2010) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2009.12.005 · Cited by 398
Dheeba, J., Albert Singh, N., & Tamil Selvi, S. (2014) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.01.010 · Cited by 380
A deep learning approach for the analysis of masses in mammograms with minimal user intervention
Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., & Bradley, A. P. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.01.009 · Cited by 336
Cervical cancer classification using convolutional neural networks and extreme learning machines
Ghoneim, A., Muhammad, G., & Hossain, M. S. (2020) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.09.015 · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Eltonsy, N. H., Tourassi, G. D., & Elmaghraby, A. S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 880-889
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096866836
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.27
- 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 Concentric Morphology Model for the Detection of Masses in Mammography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2007.895460
- The paper
- Eltonsy, N. H., Tourassi, G. D., & Elmaghraby, A. S. (2007). A Concentric Morphology Model for the Detection of Masses in Mammography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2007.895460
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.