SynthesisBiomedical engineering online2026
Application of deep learning technology in breast cancer: a systematic review of segmentation, detection, and classification approaches.
Synthesis in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Multi-Cancer Analysis for Predicting Disease-Free Survival Across Multiple Cancer Types.Cancers · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Radiomics in Oncology: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A hybrid deep learning framework for accurate breast cancer classification using MRI images.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Fusion of genomic and pathological data for breast cancer detection using BCDNN.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo provide a critical and clinically oriented synthesis of recent deep learning developments for breast cancer imaging across major modalities, with emphasis on model architectures, dataset characteristics, methodological quality, and implications for clinical translation.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar for studies published from 2020 to 2024 on deep learning applied to breast imaging. Sixty-five studies using convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Transformers, or hybrid architectures were included. Datasets were comparatively profiled, and study quality and risk of bias were appraised using QUADAS-2.
resultsCNN-based classifiers, particularly on mammography and pathology, commonly achieved median accuracies above 90% and AUCs around or above 0.95, while CNN detectors reported high sensitivities and mid-90% accuracies, supporting their potential role as second readers. CNN-derived U-Net variants dominated segmentation tasks, yielding high Dice and IoU values for tumour and fibroglandular-tissue delineation. Transformer and hybrid models showed advantages when global context, multi-view inputs or volumetric data were critical (e.g. dense breasts, DBT, DCE-MRI), where they improved lesion localisation and patient-level risk stratification. However, QUADAS-2 and dataset profiling revealed substantial limitations: most studies were retrospective, single-centre and class-imbalanced, with narrow demographic representation, heterogeneous reference standards and scarce external or prospective validation. These factors raise concerns about bias, overfitting, fairness and robustness in real-world deployment. Only a minority of studies systematically addressed interpretability, workflow integration or regulatory requirements.
conclusionsDeep learning offers considerable promise to support early detection, risk stratification and workflow efficiency across breast imaging modalities, with CNNs and Transformers providing complementary strengths for local fine-detail versus global contextual modelling. Nevertheless, the current evidence base is constrained by heterogeneous designs, limited reporting of study quality and biased datasets, so reported performance should not be interpreted as definitive proof of clinical readiness. Future research should prioritise multi-centre, demographically diverse cohorts, transparent quality assessment, external and prospective validation, and evaluation of reader and workflow impact. Developing explainable, fairness-aware and privacy-preserving systems-such as those enabled by interpretable architectures and federated learning-will be essential for safe and equitable translation of deep learning tools into routine breast cancer care.
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.