End-to-end CNN-based deep learning enhances breast lesion characterization using quantitative ultrasound (QUS) spectral parametric images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUS spectral parametric imaging offers a fast and accurate method for breast lesion characterization. This study explored using deep CNNs to classify breast lesions from QUS spectral parametric images, aiming to enhance radiomics and conventional machine learning. Predictive models were developed using transfer learning with pre-trained CNNs to distinguish malignant from benign lesions. The dataset included 276 participants: 184 malignant (median age, 51 years [IQR: 27-81 years]) and 92 benign cases (median age, 46 years [IQR: 18-75 years]). QUS spectral parametric imaging was applied to the US RF data and resulted in 1764 images of QUS spectral (MBF, SS, and SI), along with QUS scattering parameters (ASD and AAC). The data were randomly split into 60% training, 20% validation, and 20% test sets, stratified by lesion subtype, and repeated five times. The number of convolutional blocks was optimized, and the final convolutional layer was fine-tuned. Models tested included ResNet, Inception-v3, Xception, and EfficientNet. Xception-41 achieved a recall of 86 ± 3%, specificity of 87 ± 5%, balanced accuracy of 87 ± 3%, and an AUC of 0.93 ± 0.02 on test sets. EfficientNetV2-M showed similar performance with a recall of 91 ± 1%, specificity of 81 ± 7%, balanced accuracy of 86 ± 3%, and an AUC of 0.92 ± 0.02. CNN models outperformed radiomics and conventional machine learning (p-values < 0.05). This study demonstrated the capability of end-to-end CNN-based models for the accurate characterization of breast masses from QUS spectral parametric images.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".