ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023
Machine Learning Approaches with Textural Features to Calculate Breast Density on Mammography.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast density classification using frequency-based features in microwave imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine and Deep Learning on Radiomic Features from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Characterization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Approaches for Breast Density Estimation from Mammograms: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Machine Learning for Biomedical Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A multicentric study of radiomics and artificial intelligence analysis on contrast-enhanced mammography to identify different histotypes of breast cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Radiomics and artificial intelligence analysis by T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to predict Breast Cancer Histological Outcome.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- SNSVM: SqueezeNet-Guided SVM for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Computers, materials & continua · 2023Article
- A Statistical Approach to Assess the Robustness of Radiomics Features in the Discrimination of Mammographic Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Brain Tumor Imaging: A Step toward Personalized Medicine.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundbreast cancer (BC) is the world's most prevalent cancer in the female population, with 2.3 million new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2020. The great efforts made to set screening campaigns, early detection programs, and increasingly targeted treatments led to significant improvement in patients' survival. The Full-Field Digital Mammograph (FFDM) is considered the gold standard method for the early diagnosis of BC. From several previous studies, it has emerged that breast density (BD) is a risk factor in the development of BC, affecting the periodicity of screening plans present today at an international level.
objectivein this study, the focus is the development of mammographic image processing techniques that allow the extraction of indicators derived from textural patterns of the mammary parenchyma indicative of BD risk factors.
methodsa total of 168 patients were enrolled in the internal training and test set while a total of 51 patients were enrolled to compose the external validation cohort. Different Machine Learning (ML) techniques have been employed to classify breasts based on the values of the tissue density. Textural features were extracted only from breast parenchyma with which to train classifiers, thanks to the aid of ML algorithms.
resultsthe accuracy of different tested classifiers varied between 74.15% and 93.55%. The best results were reached by a Support Vector Machine (accuracy of 93.55% and a percentage of true positives and negatives equal to TPP = 94.44% and TNP = 92.31%). The best accuracy was not influenced by the choice of the features selection approach. Considering the external validation cohort, the SVM, as the best classifier with the 7 features selected by a wrapper method, showed an accuracy of 0.95, a sensitivity of 0.96, and a specificity of 0.90.
conclusionsour preliminary results showed that the Radiomics analysis and ML approach allow us to objectively identify BD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.