Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

A Foundational Generative Model for Breast Ultrasound Image Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read BUSGen, a generative model pretrained on 3.5 million breast ultrasound images, can produce task-specific synthetic images that train downstream models to match or exceed real-data-trained foundation models and to outperform radiologists…

desk verdict Ambitious synthetic-data scaling study for breast ultrasound, but the current draft has unresolved numerical contradictions and an undisclosed data-cleaning step that could confound the main claim; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06869 v1 pith:B4G43ZUJ submitted 2025-01-12 cs.AI cs.CVcs.HCcs.LG

Haojun Yu , Youcheng Li , Nan Zhang , Zihan Niu , Xuantong Gong , Yanwen Luo , Haotian Ye , Siyu He
show 15 more authors
Quanlin Wu Wangyan Qin Mengyuan Zhou Jie Han Jia Tao Ziwei Zhao Di Dai Di He Dong Wang Binghui Tang Ling Huo James Zou Qingli Zhu Yong Wang Liwei Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CVcs.HCcs.LG
keywords breastultrasoundgenerativefoundationmodeldiffusionsyntheticdatafew-shotadaptationcancerearlydiagnosisscalingprivacy-preservingsharing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that scarcity of breast ultrasound data need not block deep-learning clinical tools: a diffusion model pretrained on 3.5 million images can generate unlimited task-specific images, and models trained only on those generated images can match or beat models trained on real collected data. If true, this removes a major obstacle—privacy-restricted data collection—from breast ultrasound AI development. The strongest test is early diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, where the generated-data model outperformed nine board-certified radiologists on average sensitivity. The paper also claims that generated data scales like real data, improves external generalization, and enables fully de-identified sharing.

What carries the argument

The central object is BUSGen, a pixel-space conditional Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model with a lightweight U-Net of roughly 50 million parameters, pretrained on 3,518,495 breast ultrasound images conditioned on pathology labels, lesion bounding boxes, and device type. In adaptation, the pretrained weights are frozen and low-rank adapters (LoRA) are fine-tuned with strong augmentation plus a device-type augmentation that translates images across 18 scanner types; classifier-free guidance controls the generation, DPMSolver++ accelerates sampling, and CPSampling prevents the generator from replicating training images. A data-cleaning step then filters low-quality generated samples, and the surviving synthetic images are used to train the downstream models.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to retrain the DCIS and diagnosis models on BUSGen-generated data with the data-cleaning filter disabled and evaluate on the same external test sets; if the AUCs drop to near chance or to baseline levels, the cleaning step, not the generative model, was carrying the label signal. A second check is to run the same generated-data pipeline on a completely new external ultrasound dataset from a different scanner generation and region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a generative foundation model for breast ultrasound can produce realistic, task-specific synthetic data that is at least as effective as collected real-world data for training diagnostic models. On six tasks spanning screening, diagnosis, and prognosis, downstream models trained on BUSGen-generated data (BUS-DMs) outperformed Baseline-CLIP, a contrastive vision-language model pretrained on 1.65 million medical image-caption pairs and fine-tuned on real breast ultrasound data. In breast cancer early diagnosis (DCIS vs. benign), the synthetic-trained model exceeded all nine board-certified radiologists, achieving 16.5% higher average sensitivity at matched specificity. Scaling generated data to 1 million images produced an AUC of 0.929 on the BUSI test set, comparable to NYU-AI trained on 288,767 real images (AUC 0.927).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that images generated from a few real examples preserve the class-relevant morphology of the target population, so a model trained only on generated data transfers to external patients; if that transfer fails, the reported AUCs and radiologist comparisons collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models trained solely on BUSGen-generated data outperformed a CLIP-based foundation model fine-tuned on real data in all six evaluated tasks.
  • At 1 million generated images, the diagnostic model matched a real-data model trained on 288,767 images on the BUSI test set, and scaling curves suggest more generated data would continue to improve performance.
  • In DCIS early diagnosis, the synthetic-trained model exceeded nine board-certified radiologists by 16.5% average sensitivity at the same specificity, and eight of nine readers improved when shown its predictions.
  • Generated data reduced shortcut learning from acquisition biases, so BUS-DMs showed smaller performance drops in external evaluations than real-data-trained baselines.
  • CPSampling-based generation avoids exact replication of training images, supporting fully de-identified data sharing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If synthetic data trains models as effectively as real data, prospective evaluation of ultrasound AI could be moved largely into simulation, reserving real clinical images for final confirmation.
  • Editorial inference: The same few-shot LoRA adaptation recipe is a candidate for other imaging modalities with scarce labeled pathology, such as thyroid, liver, or musculoskeletal ultrasound.
  • Editorial inference: The reported gains depend on the data-cleaning filter; a cleaner test of the core claim would train the diagnostic model on generated data with label-based cleaning disabled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BUSGen, a conditional diffusion model pretrained on 3.5 million breast ultrasound images, adapted via LoRA to generate task-specific data, and used to train downstream models (BUS-DMs) for screening, diagnosis, and prognosis tasks. The main claims are that BUS-DMs trained on generated data match or outperform real-data-trained CLIP-based baselines, that a BUS-DM trained on 1 million generated images reaches AUC 0.929 on BUSI, comparable to a model trained on 288,767 real images, that a generated-data-only DCIS classifier outperforms nine board-certified radiologists, and that CPSampling prevents patient-identifying replication. The evaluation includes external test sets from PUMCH and CICAMS, the public BUSI dataset, and a radiologist reader study.

Significance. If the claims held, this would be a substantial advance: it would suggest that synthetic ultrasound data alone can replace real collected data for training diagnostic classifiers, with external validation and a comparison against human readers. The strengths include the scale of pretraining data, the use of external test sets not used in generation, the explicit radiologist reader study, and the public demo. However, the central quantitative claims are currently undermined by unresolved contradictions between the main text and figure captions, and the key 'synthetic-only' claim depends on a data-cleaning step that is not specified. These issues prevent the results from being assessed in their present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.3.2] The paper's core comparisons in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 depend on the assertion that BUS-DMs are trained only on generated data, but the data-cleaning step is described only as removing 'generated images with incorrect labels (i.e., generated lesions that are inconsistent with the given conditions)'. The manuscript never states how 'incorrect' is determined. If this filter is implemented with a classifier trained on real labeled data, then the labels of the synthetic training set are partly supplied by a real-data-trained oracle, and the comparisons against real-data-trained baselines are confounded. Please specify the cleaning algorithm completely, state whether any real-labeled data or a pretrained oracle is used in cleaning, and provide an ablation with and without cleaning. Without this information, the 'trained only on generated data' claim cannot be evaluated.
  2. [2.6/Fig. 5a; 2.5/Fig. 4e; 4.4.2] The reported results contain unresolved numerical contradictions that affect the headline claims. In Section 2.6 the BUS-DM TNBC AUC is reported as 0.803 (95% CI 0.740-0.880), while the Fig. 5a caption reports 0.954 (95% CI 0.932-0.983) for the same comparison. In Section 2.5 the Baseline-CLIP AUC on the BUSI test set is 0.893 (95% CI 0.865-0.918), while the Fig. 4e caption reports 0.876 (95% CI 0.849-0.903). In Section 4.4.2 the early-diagnosis test set is described as containing 296 lesions (63 benign and 133 DCIS), but 63 + 133 = 196. These discrepancies concern the main quantitative evidence and must be resolved before the results can be assessed.
  3. [2.2/Fig. 2b] The privacy claim is supported by a maximum cosine similarity of 0.896 between generated samples and their nearest neighbors in an unspecified feature space, together with two example image pairs. This does not establish that exact replication cannot occur, nor does it support the abstract's stronger statement about 'fully de-identified data sharing'. The similarity threshold depends on the choice of feature extractor and normalization, and no membership-inference or retrieval audit is reported. Please report the exact similarity measure, a calibrated threshold, and a membership-inference/nearest-neighbor audit, or temper the privacy claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [2.2/Fig. 2a] The Visual Turing Test should report each reader's exact count of generated images judged as real, along with confidence intervals; 'approximately 50%-75%' is imprecise.
  2. [4.2.2] The pretraining data are derived from 5,907 scanning videos; please clarify how frames were sampled or downsampled so that temporally correlated frames are not inflating the effective number of independent training examples.
  3. [4.2.3] Pathology labels are available for only 1,387 of 3,749 lesions, yet pathology is one of the conditioning variables in Equation (1); please specify how missing pathology labels are encoded during conditional training.
  4. [4.4.1] For lesion detection, the manuscript reports P-values for Average Precision, but Section 4.5 only describes DeLong's test for AUC; please state the statistical test used for AP comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: headline results are tested on external real data, and the unspecified data-cleaning step is a transparency risk rather than a proven reduction.

full rationale

The central BUSGen claim is that classifiers trained on generated images match or beat real-data-trained baselines and radiologists on real external test sets (PUMCH, CICAMS, BUSI) that were not used in generation. This evaluation design means the reported AUCs do not reduce by construction to fitted quantities. The labels attached to generated images are the conditioning inputs of the diffusion model, but the downstream models are evaluated on held-out real labels, making the experiment a genuine transfer test rather than a tautology. The data-cleaning step in Section 4.3.2 is underspecified: the paper states it removes 'generated images with incorrect labels (i.e., generated lesions that are inconsistent with the given conditions)' and observes a 'notable improvement,' but it does not reveal whether 'incorrect' is judged by a real-data-trained oracle or by an unsupervised quality metric. Absent that detail, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, so this is a transparency/reproducibility concern rather than a demonstrated circularity. The only overlapping-author citation identified ([17], by co-author James Zou) is used as background for deep learning in medical imaging and is not load-bearing. The numerical inconsistencies in the manuscript (e.g., TNBC AUC 0.803 vs. 0.954 in Fig. 5a; Baseline-CLIP BUSI AUC 0.893 vs. 0.876; test set described as 296 lesions while 63 benign plus 133 DCIS sums to 196) are correctness risks, not circularity. The residual score reflects the mild unverified risk around the cleaning step, not a found circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the standard DDPM training objective (Eq. 1) and classifier-free guidance (Eq. 2), which are taken from prior literature, plus several domain assumptions about the BUS-3.5M dataset, annotation reliability, privacy metrics, and external test-set independence. No new physical entities are introduced; BUSGen is a trained model artifact rather than a postulated entity. The main unstated dependencies are the data-cleaning criteria and the validity of CLIP-space cosine similarity as a privacy guarantee.

free parameters (5)
  • classifier-free guidance weight w
    Controls the strength of condition adherence in Eq. (2); its value is not reported in the main text.
  • LoRA rank and adaptation hyperparameters
    The few-shot adaptation in Section 4.3.2 freezes the pretrained model and trains low-rank adapters, but the rank and related hyperparameters are not given.
  • diffusion time steps T and sampling steps
    The Markov chain length T in Eq. (1) and the DPM-Solver++ step count are not reported.
  • data-cleaning thresholds
    Section 4.3.2 removes generated samples with labels inconsistent with conditions, but the criterion for inconsistency is not specified.
  • generated data scales per task = 20,000; 10,000; 1,000,000
    Downstream tasks use 20k (detection), 10k (screening and prognosis), and 1M (diagnosis) generated samples; these are chosen quantities, not fitted constants.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The DDPM denoising objective in Eq. (1) learns the underlying conditional distribution P(x|c) of breast ultrasound images.
    Standard denoising diffusion theory (Ho et al., 2020); the paper relies on it without proof.
  • domain assumption The BUS-3.5M dataset is representative of breast ultrasound images and its expert-extracted annotations are correct.
    All pretrained knowledge and downstream benefits derive from this dataset; annotations were extracted from clinical reports and asserted, not independently verified.
  • ad hoc to paper CPSampling prevents training-data replication, and cosine similarity in a learned feature space is a valid privacy measure.
    Section 2.2 uses a maximum cosine similarity of 0.896 to claim the model 'will not exactly replicate any image' and to support 'completely de-privacy data sharing'; this is not a formal privacy guarantee.
  • domain assumption The external test sets (PUMCH, CICAMS, BUSI) are independent of the pretraining data and representative of the target populations.
    Generalization and head-to-head claims in Sections 2.4 to 2.6 depend on this independence and representativeness.
  • domain assumption The reader study protocol, including telling readers that the test distribution differs from clinical practice, yields a fair comparison to BUS-DM.
    Section 4.4.2 discloses this instruction, but the disclosure itself may shift radiologist thresholds and affect the comparison.
invented entities (1)
  • BUSGen
    purpose: Conditional diffusion model that generates synthetic breast ultrasound images for downstream task training.
    BUSGen is the trained model introduced in this paper. No public weights or code are released, only an online demo, so its outputs cannot be independently verified outside the paper's own pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Foundational Generative Model for Breast Ultrasound Image Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4G43ZUJ

@misc{pith2026250106869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Foundational Generative Model for Breast Ultrasound Image Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4G43ZUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06869}
}
read the original abstract

Foundational models have emerged as powerful tools for addressing various tasks in clinical settings. However, their potential development to breast ultrasound analysis remains untapped. In this paper, we present BUSGen, the first foundational generative model specifically designed for breast ultrasound image analysis. Pretrained on over 3.5 million breast ultrasound images, BUSGen has acquired extensive knowledge of breast structures, pathological features, and clinical variations. With few-shot adaptation, BUSGen can generate repositories of realistic and informative task-specific data, facilitating the development of models for a wide range of downstream tasks. Extensive experiments highlight BUSGen's exceptional adaptability, significantly exceeding real-data-trained foundational models in breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and prognosis. In breast cancer early diagnosis, our approach outperformed all board-certified radiologists (n=9), achieving an average sensitivity improvement of 16.5% (P-value<0.0001). Additionally, we characterized the scaling effect of using generated data which was as effective as the collected real-world data for training diagnostic models. Moreover, extensive experiments demonstrated that our approach improved the generalization ability of downstream models. Importantly, BUSGen protected patient privacy by enabling fully de-identified data sharing, making progress forward in secure medical data utilization. An online demo of BUSGen is available at https://aibus.bio.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ca Cancer J Clin 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

    Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Wagle, N.S., Jemal, A., et al.: Cancer statistics, 2023. Ca Cancer J Clin 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Chemical Biology Letters 10(1), 451–451 (2023)

    Chhikara, B.S., Parang, K.: Global cancer statistics 2022: the trends projection analysis. Chemical Biology Letters 10(1), 451–451 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Chinese medical journal 135(05), 584–590 (2022) 19

    Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., Cao, M., Sun, D., He, S., Yang, F., Yan, X., Zhang, S., Li, N., et al.: Cancer statistics in china and united states, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chinese medical journal 135(05), 584–590 (2022) 19

    2022

  4. [4]

    American College of Radiology., 39 (2013)

    Sickles, E.A.: Acr bi-rads ® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology., 39 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    The Lancet 387(10016), 341–348 (2016)

    Ohuchi, N., Suzuki, A., Sobue, T., Kawai, M., Yamamoto, S., Zheng, Y.-F., Shiono, Y.N., Saito, H., Kuriyama, S., Tohno, E.,et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the japan strategic anti-cancer randomized trial (j-start): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 387(10016), 341–348 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Jama 307(13), 1394–1404 (2012)

    Berg, W.A., Zhang, Z., Lehrer, D., Jong, R.A., Pisano, E.D., Barr, R.G., B¨ ohm- V´ elez, M., Mahoney, M.C., Evans, W.P., Larsen, L.H.,et al.: Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening mri to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. Jama 307(13), 1394–1404 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    British journal of cancer 112(6), 998–1004 (2015)

    Shen, S., Zhou, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, B., Duan, X., Huang, R., Li, B., Shi, Y., Shao, Z., Liao, H., et al.: A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk chinese women. British journal of cancer 112(6), 998–1004 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    American Journal of Roentgenology 204(2), 234–240 (2015)

    Brem, R.F., Lenihan, M.J., Lieberman, J., Torrente, J.: Screening breast ultra- sound: past, present, and future. American Journal of Roentgenology 204(2), 234–240 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of global oncology (2019)

    Sood, R., Rositch, A.F., Shakoor, D., Ambinder, E., Pool, K.-L., Pollack, E., Mollura, D.J., Mullen, L.A., Harvey, S.C.: Ultrasound for breast cancer detec- tion globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of global oncology (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Annals of Oncology 31(4), 451–469 (2020)

    Park, Y., Senkus-Konefka, E., Im, S.-A., Pentheroudakis, G., Saji, S., Gupta, S., Iwata, H., Mastura, M., Dent, R., Lu, Y.-S.,et al.: Pan-asian adapted esmo clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with early breast cancer: a ksmo-esmo initiative endorsed by...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Elsevier (2016)

    Weese, J., Lorenz, C.: Four challenges in medical image analysis from an industrial perspective. Elsevier (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Artificial intelligence in medicine 73, 45–69 (2016)

    Gonz´ alez-Vill` a, S., Oliver, A., Valverde, S., Wang, L., Zwiggelaar, R., Llad´ o, X.: A review on brain structures segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging. Artificial intelligence in medicine 73, 45–69 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Nature Machine Intelligence 2(11), 665–673 (2020)

    Geirhos, R., Jacobsen, J.-H., Michaelis, C., Zemel, R., Brendel, W., Bethge, M., Wichmann, F.A.: Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence 2(11), 665–673 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Nature medicine 29(12), 3033–3043 (2023)

    Cao, K., Xia, Y., Yao, J., Han, X., Lambert, L., Zhang, T., Tang, W., Jin, 20 G., Jiang, H., Fang, X., et al.: Large-scale pancreatic cancer detection via non-contrast ct and deep learning. Nature medicine 29(12), 3033–3043 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    npj Digital Medicine 7(1), 126 (2024)

    Goetz, L., Seedat, N., Vandersluis, R., Schaar, M.: Generalization—a key chal- lenge for responsible ai in patient-facing clinical applications. npj Digital Medicine 7(1), 126 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Nature Biomedical Engineering 6(12), 1399–1406 (2022)

    Tiu, E., Talius, E., Patel, P., Langlotz, C.P., Ng, A.Y., Rajpurkar, P.: Expert-level detection of pathologies from unannotated chest x-ray images via self-supervised learning. Nature Biomedical Engineering 6(12), 1399–1406 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Nature medicine 29(9), 2307–2316 (2023)

    Huang, Z., Bianchi, F., Yuksekgonul, M., Montine, T.J., Zou, J.: A visual– language foundation model for pathology image analysis using medical twitter. Nature medicine 29(9), 2307–2316 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Nature, 1–8 (2024)

    Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Bagga, J., Zhang, S., Rao, R., Naumann, T., Wong, C., Gero, Z., Gonz´ alez, J., Gu, Y., et al.: A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data. Nature, 1–8 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

    De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J.R., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Tomasev, N., Black- well, S., Askham, H., Glorot, X., O’Donoghue, B., Visentin, D., et al.: Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nature medicine 24(9), 1342–1350 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Nature 622(7981), 156–163 (2023)

    Zhou, Y., Chia, M.A., Wagner, S.K., Ayhan, M.S., Williamson, D.J., Struyven, R.R., Liu, T., Xu, M., Lozano, M.G., Woodward-Court, P., et al.: A foundation model for generalizable disease detection from retinal images. Nature 622(7981), 156–163 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 22(4), 1218–1226 (2017)

    Yap, M.H., Pons, G., Marti, J., Ganau, S., Sentis, M., Zwiggelaar, R., Davison, A.K., Marti, R.: Automated breast ultrasound lesions detection using convolu- tional neural networks. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 22(4), 1218–1226 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Data in brief 28, 104863 (2020)

    Al-Dhabyani, W., Gomaa, M., Khaled, H., Fahmy, A.: Dataset of breast ultra- sound images. Data in brief 28, 104863 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp

    Lin, Z., Lin, J., Zhu, L., Fu, H., Qin, J., Wang, L.: A new dataset and a baseline model for breast lesion detection in ultrasound videos. In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 614–623 (2022). Springer

    2022

  16. [24]

    Journal of the American medical informatics association 20(1), 2–6 (2013)

    Malin, B.A., Emam, K.E., O’Keefe, C.M.: Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances. Journal of the American medical informatics association 20(1), 2–6 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Nature communications 12(1), 5645 (2021)

    Shen, Y., Shamout, F.E., Oliver, J.R., Witowski, J., Kannan, K., Park, J., Wu, 21 N., Huddleston, C., Wolfson, S., Millet, A., et al.: Artificial intelligence system reduces false-positive findings in the interpretation of breast ultrasound exams. Nature communications 12(1), ...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Breast cancer research and treatment 173, 365–373 (2019)

    Wu, T., Sultan, L.R., Tian, J., Cary, T.W., Sehgal, C.M.: Machine learning for diagnostic ultrasound of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment 173, 365–373 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Japanese Journal of Radiology 40(8), 814–822 (2022)

    Ozaki, J., Fujioka, T., Yamaga, E., Hayashi, A., Kujiraoka, Y., Imokawa, T., Taka- hashi, K., Okawa, S., Yashima, Y., Mori, M., et al.: Deep learning method with a convolutional neural network for image classification of normal and metastatic axillary lymph nodes on breast ult...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization 9(2), 131–145 (2021)

    Zuluaga-Gomez, J., Al Masry, Z., Benaggoune, K., Meraghni, S., Zerhouni, N.: A cnn-based methodology for breast cancer diagnosis using thermal images. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization 9(2), 131–145 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    NPJ Digital Medicine 7(1), 124 (2024)

    Ong Ly, C., Unnikrishnan, B., Tadic, T., Patel, T., Duhamel, J., Kandel, S., Moayedi, Y., Brudno, M., Hope, A., Ross, H., et al.: Shortcut learning in medical ai hinders generalization: method for estimating ai model generalization without external data. NPJ Digital Medicine 7...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Frontiers in Medicine 11, 1393123 (2024)

    Namli, T., Anıl Sınacı, A., G¨ on¨ ul, S., Herguido, C.R., Garcia-Canadilla, P., Mu˜ noz, A.M., Esteve, A.V., Ert¨ urkmen, G.B.L.: A scalable and transparent data pipeline for ai-enabled health data ecosystems. Frontiers in Medicine 11, 1393123 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877–1901 (2020)

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877–1901 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 27730–27744 (2022)

    Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al.: Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 27730–27744 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2023) 22

    Team, G., Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Alayrac, J.-B., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A.M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., et al.: Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2023) 22

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., Arx, S., Bern- stein, M.S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al.: On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nature Biomedical Engineering, 1–13 (2024)

    Bluethgen, C., Chambon, P., Delbrouck, J.-B., Sluijs, R., Po lacin, M., Zam- brano Chaves, J.M., Abraham, T.M., Purohit, S., Langlotz, C.P., Chaudhari, A.S.: A vision–language foundation model for the generation of realistic chest x-ray images. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 1...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Nature Medicine, 1–9 (2024)

    Wang, J., Wang, K., Yu, Y., Lu, Y., Xiao, W., Sun, Z., Liu, F., Zou, Z., Gao, Y., Yang, L., et al.: Self-improving generative foundation model for synthetic medical image generation and clinical applications. Nature Medicine, 1–9 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Nature 577(7788), 89–94 (2020)

    McKinney, S.M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G.S., Darzi, A.,et al.: International evaluation of an ai system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577(7788), 89–94 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Journal of the American college of radiology 7(1), 18–27 (2010)

    Lee, C.H., Dershaw, D.D., Kopans, D., Evans, P., Monsees, B., Monticciolo, D., Brenner, R.J., Bassett, L., Berg, W., Feig, S., et al.: Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the acr on the use of mammography, breast mri, br...

    2010

  32. [40]

    British journal of cancer 108(11), 2205–2240 (2013)

    Marmot, M.G., Altman, D., Cameron, D., Dewar, J., Thompson, S., Wilcox, M.: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. British journal of cancer 108(11), 2205–2240 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Nature biomedical engineering 5(6), 522–532 (2021)

    Qian, X., Pei, J., Zheng, H., Xie, X., Yan, L., Zhang, H., Han, C., Gao, X., Zhang, H., Zheng, W., et al.: Prospective assessment of breast cancer risk from multimodal multiview ultrasound images via clinically applicable deep learning. Nature biomedical engineering 5(6), 522–...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2(6), 190208 (2020)

    Pacil` e, S., Lopez, J., Chone, P., Bertinotti, T., Grouin, J.M., Fillard, P.: Improving breast cancer detection accuracy of mammography with the concurrent use of an artificial intelligence tool. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2(6), 190208 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    The Lancet Digital Health 2(9), 468–474 (2020)

    Dembrower, K., W ˚ ahlin, E., Liu, Y., Salim, M., Smith, K., Lindholm, P., Eklund, M., Strand, F.: Effect of artificial intelligence-based triaging of breast can- cer screening mammograms on cancer detection and radiologist workload: a retrospective simulation study. The Lance...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Radiology 294(1), 19–28 (2020) 23

    Zhou, L.-Q., Wu, X.-L., Huang, S.-Y., Wu, G.-G., Ye, H.-R., Wei, Q., Bao, L.-Y., Deng, Y.-B., Li, X.-R., Cui, X.-W., et al.: Lymph node metastasis prediction from primary breast cancer us images using deep learning. Radiology 294(1), 19–28 (2020) 23

    2020

  37. [45]

    Cancer Control 17(3), 143–155 (2010)

    Tafreshi, N.K., Kumar, V., Morse, D.L., Gatenby, R.A.: Molecular and functional imaging of breast cancer. Cancer Control 17(3), 143–155 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Annals of translational medicine 8(7) (2020)

    Zhao, S., Zuo, W.-J., Shao, Z.-M., Jiang, Y.-Z.: Molecular subtypes and precision treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Annals of translational medicine 8(7) (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Advances in anatomic pathology 27(1), 27–35 (2020)

    Tsang, J.Y., Gary, M.T.: Molecular classification of breast cancer. Advances in anatomic pathology 27(1), 27–35 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8748–8763 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  42. [50]

    Fan, L., Chen, K., Krishnan, D., Katabi, D., Isola, P., Tian, Y.: Scaling laws of synthetic images for model training... for now. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 7382–7392 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

    Ktena, I., Wiles, O., Albuquerque, I., Rebuffi, S.-A., Tanno, R., Roy, A.G., Azizi, S., Belgrave, D., Kohli, P., Cemgil, T., et al.: Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts. Nature Medicine, 1–8 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 34, 8780–8794 (2021)

    Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A.: Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems 34, 8780–8794 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    In: NeurIPS 2021 Work- shop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications (2021)

    Ho, J., Salimans, T.: Classifier-free diffusion guidance. In: NeurIPS 2021 Work- shop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W.: LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 5775–5787 (2022)

    Lu, C., Zhou, Y., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., Zhu, J.: Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 5775–5787 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01095 (2022)

    Lu, C., Zhou, Y., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., Zhu, J.: Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01095 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07025 (2024) 24

    Kazdan, J., Sun, H., Han, J., Petersen, F., Ermon, S.: Cpsample: Classifier protected sampling for guarding training data during diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07025 (2024) 24

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp

    Lin, W., Zhao, Z., Zhang, X., Wu, C., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, W.: Pmc- clip: Contrastive language-image pre-training using biomedical documents. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 525–536 (2023). Springer

    2023

  51. [59]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X.: An image isworth 16 × 16 words: Transformers for image recognition atscale. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(12), 3618–3623 (2015)

    Geman, D., Geman, S., Hallonquist, N., Younes, L.: Visual turing test for com- puter vision systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(12), 3618–3623 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pp

    Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al.: Extracting training data from large language models. In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pp. 2633–2650 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Jama 293(10), 1245–1256 (2005)

    Elmore, J.G., Armstrong, K., Lehman, C.D., Fletcher, S.W.: Screening for breast cancer. Jama 293(10), 1245–1256 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    Jama 314(15), 1615–1634 (2015)

    Myers, E.R., Moorman, P., Gierisch, J.M., Havrilesky, L.J., Grimm, L.J., Ghate, S., Davidson, B., Mongtomery, R.C., Crowley, M.J., McCrory, D.C., et al.: Ben- efits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Jama 314(15), 1615–1634 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    British journal of cancer 123(4), 673–688 (2020)

    Yuan, W.-H., Hsu, H.-C., Chen, Y.-Y., Wu, C.-H.: Supplemental breast cancer- screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of cancer 123(4), 673–688 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 107, 101880 (2020)

    Yap, M.H., Goyal, M., Osman, F., Mart ´ ı, R., Denton, E., Juette, A., Zwiggelaar, R.: Breast ultrasound region of interest detection and lesion localisation. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 107, 101880 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Modern Pathology 23, 8–13 (2010)

    Pinder, S.E.: Ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis): pathological features, differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and specimen evaluation. Modern Pathology 23, 8–13 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    JNCI Monographs 1997(22), 151–156 (1997)

    Ernster, V.L., Barclay, J.: Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. JNCI Monographs 1997(22), 151–156 (1997)

    1997

  60. [68]

    CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 50(3), 184–200 (2000)

    Winchester, D.P., Jeske, J.M., Goldschmidt, R.A.: The diagnosis and manage- ment of ductal carcinoma in-situ of the breast. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 50(3), 184–200 (2000)

    2000

  61. [69]

    Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 43(5), 918–925 (2017)

    Watanabe, T., Yamaguchi, T., Tsunoda, H., Kaoku, S., Tohno, E., Yasuda, H., 25 Ban, K., Hirokaga, K., Tanaka, K., Umemoto, T., et al.: Ultrasound image clas- sification of ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis) of the breast: analysis of 705 dcis lesions. Ultrasound in Medicine & Bio...

    2017

  62. [70]

    Acta oncologica 47(8), 1531–1538 (2008)

    Kim, S.H., Seo, B.K., Lee, J., Kim, S.J., Cho, K.R., Lee, K.Y., Je, B.-K., Kim, H.Y., Kim, Y.-S., Lee, J.-H.: Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer. Acta oncologica 47(8), 1531–1538 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    Technologies 9(3), 52 (2021)

    Ahsan, M.M., Mahmud, M.P., Saha, P.K., Gupta, K.D., Siddique, Z.: Effect of data scaling methods on machine learning algorithms and model performance. Technologies 9(3), 52 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Neurocomputing 321, 321–331 (2018)

    Frid-Adar, M., Diamant, I., Klang, E., Amitai, M., Goldberger, J., Greenspan, H.: Gan-based synthetic medical image augmentation for increased cnn performance in liver lesion classification. Neurocomputing 321, 321–331 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12453 (2023)

    Sagers, L.W., Diao, J.A., Melas-Kyriazi, L., Groh, M., Rajpurkar, P., Adam- son, A.S., Rotemberg, V., Daneshjou, R., Manrai, A.K.: Augmenting medical image classifiers with synthetic data from latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12453 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Annals of internal medicine 139(4), 274–284 (2003)

    Kerlikowske, K., Smith-Bindman, R., Ljung, B.-M., Grady, D.: Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Annals of internal medicine 139(4), 274–284 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    Endocrine-related cancer 17(4), 245–262 (2010)

    Weigel, M.T., Dowsett, M.: Current and emerging biomarkers in breast cancer: prognosis and prediction. Endocrine-related cancer 17(4), 245–262 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    In: Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol

    Baxevanis, C.N., Fortis, S.P., Perez, S.A.: The balance between breast can- cer and the immune system: Challenges for prognosis and clinical benefit from immunotherapies. In: Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 72, pp. 76–89 (2021). Elsevier

    2021

  69. [77]

    Journal of clinical oncology 26(8), 1275–1281 (2008)

    Liedtke, C., Mazouni, C., Hess, K.R., Andr´ e, F., Tordai, A., Mejia, J.A., Sym- mans, W.F., Gonzalez-Angulo, A.M., Hennessy, B., Green, M., et al.: Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncol...

    2008

  70. [78]

    Journal of clinical oncology 28(20), 3271–3277 (2010)

    Kennecke, H., Yerushalmi, R., Woods, R., Cheang, M.C.U., Voduc, D., Speers, C.H., Nielsen, T.O., Gelmon, K.: Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. Journal of clinical oncology 28(20), 3271–3277 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    Jama 310(13), 1385–1394 (2013)

    Rao, R., Euhus, D., Mayo, H.G., Balch, C.: Axillary node interventions in breast cancer: a systematic review. Jama 310(13), 1385–1394 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    The oncologist 9(6), 606–616 (2004)

    Cianfrocca, M., Goldstein, L.J.: Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage 26 breast cancer. The oncologist 9(6), 606–616 (2004)

    2004

  73. [81]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localiza- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 618–626 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Gatys, L.A., Ecker, A.S., Bethge, M.: Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2414–2423 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Zhu, J.-Y., Park, T., Isola, P., Efros, A.A.: Unpaired image-to-image transla- tion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2223–2232 (2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.: Mask r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2961–2969 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Biometrics, 837–845 (1988)

    DeLong, E.R., DeLong, D.M., Clarke-Pearson, D.L.: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 837–845 (1988)

    1988

  78. [86]

    IEEE Signal Processing Letters 21(11), 1389–1393 (2014) 27

    Sun, X., Xu, W.: Fast implementation of delong’s algorithm for comparing the areas under correlated receiver operating characteristic curves. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 21(11), 1389–1393 (2014) 27

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.