A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Deep learning-based breast region segmentation in raw and processed digital mammograms: generalization across views and vendors. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: We developed a segmentation method suited for both raw (for processing) and processed (for presentation) digital mammograms (DMs) that is designed to generalize across images acquired with systems from different vendors and across the two standard screening views.

Approach: A U-Net was trained to segment mammograms into background, breast, and pectoral muscle. Eight different datasets, including two previously published public sets and six sets of DMs from as many different vendors, were used, totaling 322 screen film mammograms (SFMs) and 4251 DMs (2821 raw/processed pairs and 1430 only processed) from 1077 different women. Three experiments were done: first training on all SFM and processed images, second also including all raw images in training, and finally testing vendor generalization by leaving one dataset out at a time.

Results: The model trained on SFM and processed mammograms achieved a good overall performance regardless of projection and vendor, with a mean (±std. dev.) dice score of for all datasets combined. When raw images were included in training, the mean (±std. dev.) dice score for the raw images was and for the processed images was . Testing on a dataset with processed DMs from a vendor that was excluded from training resulted in a difference in mean dice varying between to from that of the fully trained model.

Conclusions: The proposed segmentation method yields accurate overall segmentation results for both raw and processed mammograms independent of view and vendor. The code and model weights are made available.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10753125PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.11.1.014001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

raw images
12
segmentation raw
8
processed
8
raw processed
8
digital mammograms
8
segmentation method
8
sfm processed
8
processed images
8
processed mammograms
8
±std dev
8

Similar Publications