ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Calibrated Transformer Fusion for Dual-View Low-Energy CESM Classification.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Thyroid Nodule Detection and Classification on Small Datasets: An Ensemble Deep Learning Approach with Attention Mechanism and Focal Loss.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) provides low-energy images acquired in standard craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views, and clinical interpretation relies on integrating both views. This study proposes a dual-view classification framework that combines deep CNN feature extraction with transformer-based fusion for breast-side classification using low-energy (DM) images from CESM acquisitions (Normal vs. Tumorous; benign and malignant merged). The evaluation was conducted using 5-fold stratified group cross-validation with patient-level grouping to prevent leakage across folds. The final configuration (Model E) integrates dual-backbone feature extraction, transformer fusion, MC-dropout inference for uncertainty estimation, and post hoc logistic calibration. Across the five held-out test folds, Model E achieved a mean accuracy of 96.88% ± 2.39% and a mean F1-score of 97.68% ± 1.66%. The mean ROC-AUC and PR-AUC were 0.9915 ± 0.0098 and 0.9968 ± 0.0029, respectively. Probability quality was supported by a mean Brier score of 0.0236 ± 0.0145 and a mean expected calibration error (ECE) of 0.0334 ± 0.0171. An ablation study (Models A-E) was also reported to quantify the incremental contribution of dual-view input, transformer fusion, and uncertainty calibration. Within the limits of this retrospective single-center setting, these results suggest that dual-view transformer fusion can provide strong discrimination while also producing calibrated probabilities and uncertainty outputs that are relevant for decision support.
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.