ArticlePloS one2025
Breast cancer classification based on the integration of diagnostic algorithms for calcifications and masses using a mixture of experts.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effectiveness of an integrated deep-learning (DL) algorithm, the Mixture of Radiological Findings Specific Experts (MoRFSE), in breast cancer classification by imitating the diagnostic decision-making process of radiologists.
methodsA total of 2,764 mammographic images (1,462 breast cancer, 248 benign lesions, and 1,054 normal breast tissue) from the TOMPEI-CMMD were used. The MoRFSE comprises three DL models: a gate network for categorization (gNet) and two classification expert networks (cExp and mExp) specialized in capturing the distinct characteristics of calcifications and masses, respectively. This structure imitates radiologists' comprehensive diagnostic process by applying distinct algorithms for different lesion types. The classification performance of MoRFSE was compared with the Conventional ResNet18 model. 5-fold cross-validation was used, and performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). DeLong's test was performed to evaluate statistical significance.
resultsMoRFSE achieved a significantly higher AUC (0.9616) compared to Conventional ResNet18 (0.9577, p = 0.001348).
conclusionBy integrating specialized algorithms for calcifications and masses, the MoRFSE model effectively emulates radiologists' diagnostic process. These findings suggest that MoRFSE has the potential to improve the accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis based on mammograms.
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.