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

Differentiation of Suspicious Microcalcifications Using Deep Learning: DCIS or IDC. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Rationale And Objectives: To explore the value of a deep learning-based model in distinguishing between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) manifesting suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Materials: A total of 294 breast cancer cases (106 DCIS and 188 IDC) from two centers were randomly allocated into training, internal validation and external validation sets in this retrospective study. Clinical variables differentiating DCIS from IDC were identified through univariate and multivariate analyses and used to build a clinical model. Deep learning features were extracted using Resnet101 and selected by minimum redundancy maximum correlation (mRMR) and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). A deep learning model was developed using deep learning features, and a combined model was constructed by combining these features with clinical variables. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the performance of each model.

Results: Multivariate logistic regression identified lesion type and BI-RADS category as independent predictors for differentiating DCIS from IDC. The clinical model incorporating these factors achieved an AUC of 0.67, sensitivity of 0.53, specificity of 0.81, and accuracy of 0.63 in the external validation set. In comparison, the deep learning model showed an AUC of 0.97, sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.92, accuracy of 0.93. For the combined model, the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.97, 0.96, 0.92 and 0.95, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy of the deep learning model and combined model was comparable (p>0.05), and both models outperformed the clinical model (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Deep learning provides an effective non-invasive approach to differentiate DCIS from IDC presenting as suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.07.062DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

deep learning
24
dcis idc
12
clinical model
12
learning model
12
combined model
12
model
10
suspicious microcalcifications
8
ductal carcinoma
8
external validation
8
clinical variables
8

Similar Publications