Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Using Mammographic Data: Systematic Review

Open access
Gardezi, Syed Jamal Safdar, Elazab, Ahmed, Lei, Baiying, Wang, Tianfu·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

Background: Machine learning (ML) has become a vital part of medical imaging research. ML methods have evolved over the years from manual seeded inputs to automatic initializations. The advancements in the field of ML have led to more intelligent and self-reliant computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems, as the learning ability of ML methods has been constantly improving. More and more automated methods are emerging with deep feature learning and representations. Recent advancements of ML with deeper and extensive representation approaches, commonly known as deep learning (DL) approaches, have made a very significant impact on improving the diagnostics capabilities of the CAD systems. Objective: This review aimed to survey both traditional ML and DL literature with particular application for breast cancer diagnosis. The review also provided a brief insight into some well-known DL networks. Methods: In this paper, we present an overview of ML and DL techniques with particular application for breast cancer. Specifically, we search the PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Web of Science databases and retrieve the studies in DL for the past 5 years that have used multiview mammogram datasets. Results: The analysis of traditional ML reveals the limited usage of the methods, whereas the DL methods have great potential for implementation in clinical analysis and improve the diagnostic capability of existing CAD systems. Conclusions: From the literature, it can be found that heterogeneous breast densities make masses more challenging to detect and classify compared with calcifications. The traditional ML methods present confined approaches limited to either particular density type or datasets. Although the DL methods show promising improvements in breast cancer diagnosis, there are still issues of data scarcity and computational cost, which have been overcome to a significant extent by applying data augmentation and improved computational power of DL algorithms.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/14464

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Gardezi, S. J. S., Elazab, A., Lei, B., & Wang, T.
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-07-26
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
e14464
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2965014579
Cited by
268
References
68
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Using Mammographic Data: Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2196/14464
The paper
Gardezi, S. J. S., Elazab, A., Lei, B., & Wang, T. (2019). Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Using Mammographic Data: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/14464

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.