Breast Tumor Classification Using EfficientNet Deep Learning Model

Bengie L. Ortiz; Ebrahim Azizi; Kai Wu; Majid Behzadpour

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Breast Tumor Classification Using EfficientNet Deep Learning Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a breast tumor classifier can reach 95.04% multi-class accuracy on BreakHis by combining intensive augmentation for rare subtypes, cost-sensitive learning, and binary-to-multi-class transfer learning.

desk verdict A competent but incremental BreakHis study whose headline 95.04% accuracy may be real, but the load-bearing unknown is whether the 80/10/10 split kept patients out of both training and test. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17870 v1 pith:IOKG4ZIA submitted 2024-11-26 eess.IV cs.CV

Majid Behzadpour , Bengie L. Ortiz , Ebrahim Azizi , Kai Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CV

keywords breastcancerclassificationhistopathologicalimagesEfficientNetdeeplearningclassimbalancedataaugmentationtransferBreakHis

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 argues that the class imbalance in breast histopathology data can be largely neutralized by combining three techniques on a single EfficientNet-B5 backbone: aggressive augmentation applied only to underrepresented classes, cost-sensitive learning, and fine-tuning a binary classifier's weights for the harder multi-class task. On the BreakHis dataset the authors report that this combination lifts multi-class test accuracy from 91.27% with ordinary augmentation to 94.54% with intensive augmentation and finally to 95.04% with the binary-to-multi-class transfer step. Binary accuracy rises from 97.35% to 98.23%, with benign recall improving from 0.92 to 0.95. The authors' central claim is that the pipeline makes rare tumor subtypes such as Mucinous, Papillary, and Phyllodes tumors much less likely to be missed or mislabeled, and that this workflow can be transplanted to other imbalanced medical image classification problems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the pairing of a single CNN backbone, EfficientNet-B5, with a two-stage training protocol. EfficientNet's compound scaling formula scales depth, width, and resolution together under a constraint that roughly doubles computational cost per unit of scaling, but the contribution here is not the architecture itself: it is how the training distribution is shaped. Underrepresented classes receive a custom augmentation pipeline of flips, affine rotations, brightness adjustments, Gaussian blur, and Gaussian noise until their sample counts approach the majority classes, while class weights give minority misclassifications a higher cost. The second mechanism is transfer learning within the dataset: a binary benign/malignant classifier is trained first, and its weights initialize the eight-class model, so the multi-class model starts from features already tuned to these histology images rather than from generic ImageNet features.

What would settle it

Recompute the binary and multi-class accuracies after splitting the BreakHis patients themselves into train, validation, and test groups so that no patient appears in more than one partition; if the numbers stay near 98.23% and 95.04%, the generalization claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that accuracy gains usually credited to architecture choice can be obtained by rebalancing the training distribution and the loss, keeping the same EfficientNet-B5 backbone. The authors establish this by comparing three configurations: normal augmentation alone (91.27% multi-class), intensive augmentation on minority classes plus cost-sensitive learning (94.54%), and the same setup initialized from the weights of a binary benign/malignant model trained on the same dataset (95.04%). Per-class numbers show the gains concentrate where they matter clinically: Papillary Carcinoma precision rises from 0.86 to 0.98, Mucinous Carcinoma precision reaches 1.00, and Phyllodes Tumor recall rises from 0.84 to 0.96. The paper reads these results as evidence that targeted augmentation and transfer learning, rather than a larger or deeper network, are what yield reliable multi-class histopathology classification.

Load-bearing premise

The report's accuracy figures depend on an 80/10/10 split that is not stated to be patient-disjoint, so if images from the same patient fall into both training and testing, the reported 95.04% and 98.23% numbers overstate how the model would generalize to new patients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With intensive augmentation and cost-sensitive learning alone, the reported multi-class test accuracy on BreakHis rises from 91.27% to 94.54%; adding the binary-to-multi-class transfer step raises it to 95.04%.
Binary classification accuracy goes from 97.35% to 98.23%, with benign recall up from 0.92 to 0.95 and malignant recall unchanged at 1.00.
Rare-subtype metrics improve in the reported tables: Papillary Carcinoma precision rises from 0.86 to 0.98, Mucinous Carcinoma precision from 0.95 to 1.00, and Phyllodes Tumor recall from 0.84 to 0.96.
Since the gains come from data shaping, class weighting, and fine-tuning rather than a new architecture, the workflow is portable to other CNN backbones or other imbalanced medical datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

One reading of the binary-to-multi-class transfer step is that it transfers dataset-specific features rather than general histology knowledge; an ablation fine-tuning from ImageNet weights and from random initialization would isolate how much of the final 95.04% comes from this step.
Because the paper does not describe a patient-disjoint split, the strongest test of its generalization claim would be a patient-level split of BreakHis; if accuracy drops substantially, the reported numbers reflect image-level correlation rather than patient-level generalization.
The comparison between Tables 7 and 8 suggests transfer learning adds little beyond intensive augmentation for most classes; a per-class error decomposition would show whether the +0.5 percentage points is spread evenly or concentrated in one subtype.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent empirical paper on BreakHis with a modest, plausible increment, and the main thing to check before believing the headline number is the train/test split. If the split is patient-disjoint, the pipeline probably does what it says. If it isn't, the reported gains could be leakage.

What's actually new: the specific combination of EfficientNet-B5, intensive augmentation on underrepresented classes, cost-sensitive learning, and fine-tuning a binary model into the multi-class model. None of these components are new individually, but the binary-to-multi-class fine-tuning step is a mildly unusual configuration and the ablation (normal vs. intensive vs. intensive+transfer) gives a clear view of where each gain comes from. The numbers are internally coherent, and the test supports in Table 5 and Tables 6-8 match roughly 10% of the BreakHis class totals, which is a good sign. The direction of the improvements—rare classes gaining precision and recall—matches what the imbalance literature would predict.

Soft spots, in rough order of importance. First, Section 4.1 says only that the dataset was split 80/10/10, with no statement that the split is patient-disjoint. BreakHis has multiple images per patient, and the standard protocol in the cited literature is patient-level separation. If images from the same patient appear in both training and test, the 95.04% and 98.23% accuracies are inflated and the generalization claim is unsupported. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is the single most load-bearing unverified premise. Second, the cost-sensitive learning is mentioned in Section 3.1 and in the abstract, but the misclassification weights are never specified, so its contribution to the gains cannot be separated from augmentation alone. Third, all results are single-run with no error bars, which matters on a small dataset. Fourth, Table 9 mixes test and validation accuracies from different protocols, making the claimed superiority hard to assess. Fifth, the conclusion says EfficientNet has been applied to breast histopathology "for the first time," which is simply false given the cited related work and the broader literature. Sixth, the paper promises code on GitHub but gives no URL or commit hash.

Who this is for: researchers working on imbalanced histopathology classification who want a benchmark reference for augmentation-plus-cost-sensitive recipes. It is not a methodological breakthrough, but it is a testable empirical claim. My recommendation: engage with it, but do not take the headline accuracy at face value until the authors confirm a patient-disjoint split and provide the cost-sensitive details. With that confirmation, this is a solid, if incremental, contribution that deserves referee time. Without it, the central claim is unverified.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an EfficientNet-B5 pipeline for classifying BreakHis histopathology images into binary (benign/malignant) and eight histologic subtypes. The method combines intensive data augmentation for underrepresented classes, cost-sensitive learning, and fine-tuning from a binary model to the multi-class task. On a fixed 80/10/10 split, the paper reports 98.23% binary and 95.04% multi-class test accuracy, with improvements over baselines of 97.35% and 91.27% respectively, and large gains in rare-class precision and recall. The central claim, stated in the Abstract and in Section 4.2, is that this EfficientNet-based workflow outperforms existing approaches, particularly in multi-class classification.

Significance. If the measurements are valid, the paper provides a useful and practical recipe: targeted augmentation for classes below the per-class mean, cost-sensitive weighting, and within-dataset transfer learning can improve rare-subtype precision and recall on a standard public benchmark. The paper reports class-level precision, recall, F1-score, support, and confusion matrices, which makes the experimental claims concrete and testable. The main barrier is that the evaluation protocol does not yet establish generalization at the patient level, and several methodological details needed to replicate or attribute the gains are missing.

major comments (4)

[§4.1 (Model Evaluation)] The 80/10/10 split is not stated to be patient-disjoint, and BreakHis contains multiple images per patient. The support counts in Tables 5–8 (248 benign/543 malignant; total 790) are consistent with a random image-level split, so this is not a missing-sentence issue. If patients overlap between training and test, the reported 95.04% multi-class and 98.23% binary accuracies can reflect patient-specific leakage rather than generalization to new patients. Please report patient-level cross-validation or a patient-disjoint split with patient IDs, and make the split file available; the alleged GitHub link in §3.3 is not present in the manuscript, so the current split cannot be audited.
[§3.1 (Proposed Framework for Handling Data Imbalance)] Cost-sensitive learning is named but never operationalized: no misclassification cost matrix, class weights, or loss modification is given. Consequently, the gains in Tables 5–8 cannot be attributed to cost-sensitive learning as opposed to intensive augmentation or transfer learning. Specify the exact cost scheme (e.g., weighted categorical cross-entropy with what weights) and, if possible, include an ablation that isolates this component.
[§4.2 / Table 9] Table 9 reports validation accuracies of 99.12% (binary) and 99.25% (multi-class) for this work, but no validation accuracy numbers appear in Tables 5–8 or anywhere else in Section 4; Figure 2 is a qualitative curve without axis labels or numeric values. Please either report the source of these validation numbers or remove them, because as written the comparison table contains unsupported entries.
[§5 (Conclusion) / §3.3 (Transfer Learning)] Contribution (1) in §5 claims that EfficientNet was applied 'for the first time' to breast histopathological image classification, a claim that is not supported by the cited literature or by any prior-art search. Separately, §3.3 does not specify how the binary model's data split was reused for multi-class fine-tuning, which layers were frozen or fine-tuned, or the learning-rate schedule; both points need to be addressed for reproducibility and for the novelty statement to be credible.

minor comments (4)

[§4.1 / Table 4] The original training counts do not reconcile: §4.1 states 1,984 benign and 4,343 malignant images, while Table 4 sums to 1,983 benign and 4,341 malignant (6,324 total). Please correct the inconsistency.
[§3.3] The statement 'we applied EfficientNet B5 [13]' cites reference [13], which is the Xception-based study by Hameed et al.; this citation appears incorrect and should be replaced with the EfficientNet source or a suitable EfficientNet-B5 reference.
[Table 3] The Precision formula 'TP / (TP+FP)' has an unmatched parenthesis, and the F1-score formula is missing the multiplier formatting; please fix the mathematical notation for readability.
[§4.1 / Tables 5–8] All results come from a single run; reporting repeated runs with different seeds or confidence intervals would strengthen the reliability of the accuracy improvements, particularly for the small per-class supports.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported accuracies are genuine held-out test measurements, not quantities defined by fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard empirical evaluation: it trains EfficientNet-B5 on an 80/10/10 split of BreakHis, applies intensive augmentation and cost-sensitive learning to the training set, optionally initializes the multi-class model from weights of a binary model trained on the same data, and reports accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score on the held-out test portion. No reported quantity is defined in terms of a fitted parameter, and no test statistic is by construction equal to a training objective. The binary accuracy of 98.23% and multi-class accuracy of 95.04% are genuine measurements on a test subset, and the class-wise precision/recall values are computed from test predictions rather than from augmented training distributions. The only validation-driven choice, selecting augmentation Level 2 from the validation accuracy in Figure 2, is conventional hyperparameter and checkpoint selection and does not by construction force the reported test results. The transfer-learning step reuses binary-trained weights as an initialization for multi-class training; this is a training-strategy choice, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction, and it does not make the multi-class test result equivalent to the binary result by definition. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation: none of the cited references are authored by the present authors. Separately, the manuscript's unspecified split seed, absent GitHub URL, and lack of a stated patient-disjoint split are reproducibility and external-validity concerns, but they are not circular reasoning. I therefore find no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities or new mathematics are introduced: EfficientNet comes from [34], and augmentation plus cost sensitivity are standard. The loaded choices are tuning decisions: the augmentation intensity level selected on validation (Figure 2), the hand-set intensive augmentation parameters (Table 2), the unspecified cost-sensitive weights (Section 3.1), and the ad hoc 'below mean' rule. The riskier assumptions are evaluative: a random split is treated as patient-generalizing, and augmented samples are assumed to preserve the test distribution.

free parameters (4)

Standard augmentation intensity level = Level 2 (shear/zoom/shift 0.2, rotation 30 deg, brightness [0.9, 1.1])
Selected by validation accuracy across three levels (Figure 2); this hand-picked setting applies to all classes in every reported experiment.
Intensive augmentation parameters = h-flip 50%, v-flip 20%, rotation +/-45 deg, brightness 0.8 to 1.2, blur sigma 0 to 3, noise 0.01255 to 0.05255
Hand-set in Section 3.2 (Table 2) with the comment 'extensive hyperparameter optimization was not necessary'; these values determine the training distribution for minority classes.
Cost-sensitive misclassification weights = Not specified
Section 3.1 says higher costs are assigned to minority classes but no cost matrix or class weights are given; this component of the claimed gain is not auditable.
Underrepresented-class threshold = Below the per-class mean image count
Ad hoc rule in Section 3.1 deciding which classes receive intensive augmentation; changing the threshold would change the training distribution and the reported gains.

assumptions (5)

standard math EfficientNet compound scaling equations (2) and (3), and the B5 configuration, are taken as given from Tan and Le [34].
The paper relies on the published EfficientNet scaling law without re-deriving it.
domain assumption A random 80/10/10 image-level split is a valid evaluation protocol for BreakHis.
Section 4.1 splits images without stating patient-disjointness; BreakHis has several images per patient, so generalization across patients is assumed rather than demonstrated. Standard practice is patient-wise folds.
domain assumption Intensively augmented minority-class samples preserve the true image distribution.
The claim that augmentation raises held-out accuracy presumes the synthesized images are label- and distribution-preserving; the paper provides no check of this.
domain assumption Pooling all four magnifications into one accuracy figure is a meaningful target.
The related-work section and Table 9 list magnification-specific results for other methods; this paper aggregates across magnifications without separate evaluation.
ad hoc to paper Classes below the per-class mean are the ones that need balancing.
Section 3.1 defines the augmented set by an arbitrary threshold; the choice shapes the reported per-class gains.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breast Tumor Classification Using EfficientNet Deep Learning Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOKG4ZIA

@misc{pith2026241117870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breast Tumor Classification Using EfficientNet Deep Learning Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOKG4ZIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17870}
}

read the original abstract

Precise breast cancer classification on histopathological images has the potential to greatly improve the diagnosis and patient outcome in oncology. The data imbalance problem largely stems from the inherent imbalance within medical image datasets, where certain tumor subtypes may appear much less frequently. This constitutes a considerable limitation in biased model predictions that can overlook critical but rare classes. In this work, we adopted EfficientNet, a state-of-the-art convolutional neural network (CNN) model that balances high accuracy with computational cost efficiency. To address data imbalance, we introduce an intensive data augmentation pipeline and cost-sensitive learning, improving representation and ensuring that the model does not overly favor majority classes. This approach provides the ability to learn effectively from rare tumor types, improving its robustness. Additionally, we fine-tuned the model using transfer learning, where weights in the beginning trained on a binary classification task were adopted to multi-class classification, improving the capability to detect complex patterns within the BreakHis dataset. Our results underscore significant improvements in the binary classification performance, achieving an exceptional recall increase for benign cases from 0.92 to 0.95, alongside an accuracy enhancement from 97.35 % to 98.23%. Our approach improved the performance of multi-class tasks from 91.27% with regular augmentation to 94.54% with intensive augmentation, reaching 95.04% with transfer learning. This framework demonstrated substantial gains in precision in the minority classes, such as Mucinous carcinoma and Papillary carcinoma, while maintaining high recall consistently across these critical subtypes, as further confirmed by confusion matrix analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17870 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Validation accuracy across three augmentation parameter intensities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Augmented histopathological breast tissue images. The first row displays Adenosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Confusion matrices for binary classification results. EfficientNet B5 (a) without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Confusion matrix illustrating the results of multi-class classification with normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Confusion matrix illustrating the results of multi-class classification with intensive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Confusion matrix illustrating the results of multi-class classification with intensive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Breast cancer detection and classification using deep learning xception algorithm

Basem S Abunasser, Mohammed Rasheed J AL-Hiealy, Ihab S Zaqout, and Samy S Abu- Naser. Breast cancer detection and classification using deep learning xception algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , 13(7), 2022

work page 2022
[2]

A fully integrated computer-aided diagnosis system for digital x-ray mammograms via deep learning detection, segmentation, and classification

Mugahed A Al-Antari, Mohammed A Al-Masni, Mun-Taek Choi, Seung-Moo Han, and Tae-Seong Kim. A fully integrated computer-aided diagnosis system for digital x-ray mammograms via deep learning detection, segmentation, and classification. Interna- tional journal of medical informatics , 117:44–54, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Analyzing histological images using hybrid techniques for early detection of multi-class breast cancer based on fusion features of cnn and hand- crafted

Mohammed Al-Jabbar, Mohammed Alshahrani, Ebrahim Mohammed Senan, and Ibrahim Abdulrab Ahmed. Analyzing histological images using hybrid techniques for early detection of multi-class breast cancer based on fusion features of cnn and hand- crafted. Diagnostics, 13(10):1753, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer classification using deep neural networks and transfer learning

Hanan Aljuaid, Nazik Alturki, Najah Alsubaie, Lucia Cavallaro, and Antonio Liotta. Computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer classification using deep neural networks and transfer learning. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 223:106951, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Going deeper: magnification-invariant approach for breast can- cer classification using histopathological images

S Alkassar, Bilal A Jebur, Mohammed AM Abdullah, Joanna H Al-Khalidy, and Jonathon A Chambers. Going deeper: magnification-invariant approach for breast can- cer classification using histopathological images. IET Computer Vision , 15(2):151–164, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Fabnet: A features agglomeration-based convolutional neural network for multiscale breast cancer histopathology images classi- fication

Muhammad Sadiq Amin and Hyunsik Ahn. Fabnet: A features agglomeration-based convolutional neural network for multiscale breast cancer histopathology images classi- fication. Cancers, 15(4):1013, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

An svm approach towards breast cancer classifica- tion from h&e-stained histopathology images based on integrated features

MA Aswathy and M Jagannath. An svm approach towards breast cancer classifica- tion from h&e-stained histopathology images based on integrated features. Medical & biological engineering & computing , 59(9):1773–1783, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Deep learning-based assessment of tumor-associated stroma for diagnosing breast cancer in histopathology images

Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Jimmy Lin, Ben Glass, Maeve Mullooly, Gretchen L Gier- ach, Mark E Sherman, Nico Karssemeijer, Jeroen Van Der Laak, and Andrew H Beck. Deep learning-based assessment of tumor-associated stroma for diagnosing breast cancer in histopathology images. In 2017 IEEE 14th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI 2017) , pages...

work page 2017

Show all 36 references

[9]

Drda- net: Dense residual dual-shuffle attention network for breast cancer classification using histopathological images

Soham Chattopadhyay, Arijit Dey, Pawan Kumar Singh, and Ram Sarkar. Drda- net: Dense residual dual-shuffle attention network for breast cancer classification using histopathological images. Computers in biology and medicine , 145:105437, 2022

2022
[10]

Pcct: Progressive class-center triplet loss for imbalanced medical image classification

Kanghao Chen, Weixian Lei, Shen Zhao, Wei-Shi Zheng, and Ruixuan Wang. Pcct: Progressive class-center triplet loss for imbalanced medical image classification. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , 27(4):2026–2036, 2023. 16

2026
[11]

Personalized retrogress-resilient federated learning toward imbalanced medical data

Zhen Chen, Chen Yang, Meilu Zhu, Zhe Peng, and Yixuan Yuan. Personalized retrogress-resilient federated learning toward imbalanced medical data. IEEE Trans- actions on Medical Imaging , 41(12):3663–3674, 2022

2022
[12]

Metacost: A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive

Pedro Domingos. Metacost: A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 155–164, 1999

1999
[13]

Multiclass classification of breast cancer histopathology images using multilevel features of deep convolutional neural network

Zabit Hameed, Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, Jos´ e Javier Aguirre, and Mario Arturo Isaza- Ruget. Multiclass classification of breast cancer histopathology images using multilevel features of deep convolutional neural network. Scientific Reports, 12(1):15600, 2022

2022
[14]

Breast cancer multi-classification from histopathological images with structured deep learning model

Zhongyi Han, Benzheng Wei, Yuanjie Zheng, Yilong Yin, Kejian Li, and Shuo Li. Breast cancer multi-classification from histopathological images with structured deep learning model. Scientific reports, 7(1):4172, 2017

2017
[15]

Deep and machine learning techniques for medical imaging-based breast cancer: A comprehensive review

Essam H Houssein, Marwa M Emam, Abdelmgeid A Ali, and Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan. Deep and machine learning techniques for medical imaging-based breast cancer: A comprehensive review. Expert Systems with Applications , 167:114161, 2021

2021
[16]

Modality specific cbam-vggnet model for the classification of breast histopathology images via transfer learning

Areesha Ijaz, Basit Raza, Iqra Kiran, Abdul Waheed, Aadil Raza, Habib Shah, and Sulaiman Aftan. Modality specific cbam-vggnet model for the classification of breast histopathology images via transfer learning. IEEE Access, 11:15750–15762, 2023

2023
[17]

Revolutionizing breast cancer diagnosis: A concate- nated precision through transfer learning in histopathological data analysis.Diagnostics, 14(4):422, 2024

Dhayanithi Jaganathan, Sathiyabhama Balasubramaniam, Vidhushavarshini Sureshku- mar, and Seshathiri Dhanasekaran. Revolutionizing breast cancer diagnosis: A concate- nated precision through transfer learning in histopathological data analysis.Diagnostics, 14(4):422, 2024

2024
[18]

Glnet: global–local cnn’s-based informed model for detection of breast cancer categories from histopathological slides

Saif Ur Rehman Khan, Ming Zhao, Sohaib Asif, Xuehan Chen, and Yusen Zhu. Glnet: global–local cnn’s-based informed model for detection of breast cancer categories from histopathological slides. The Journal of Supercomputing , 80(6):7316–7348, 2024

2024
[19]

Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM , 60(6):84–90, 2017

2017
[20]

A clinical decision support tool to detect invasive ductal carcinoma in histopathological images using support vector machines, na ¨ ıve-bayes, and k-nearest neighbor classifiers

Kyra Mikaela M Lopez and Ma Sheila A Magboo. A clinical decision support tool to detect invasive ductal carcinoma in histopathological images using support vector machines, na ¨ ıve-bayes, and k-nearest neighbor classifiers. In Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, pag...

2020
[21]

Breast cancer diagnosis from histopathology images using deep neural network and xgboost

Alireza Maleki, Mohammad Raahemi, and Hamid Nasiri. Breast cancer diagnosis from histopathology images using deep neural network and xgboost. Biomedical Signal Pro- cessing and Control , 86:105152, 2023

2023
[22]

Classification of breast cancer histopathological images using discriminative patches screened by generative adversarial networks

Rui Man, Ping Yang, and Bowen Xu. Classification of breast cancer histopathological images using discriminative patches screened by generative adversarial networks. IEEE access, 8:155362–155377, 2020. 17

2020
[23]

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022

Kimberly D Miller, Leticia Nogueira, Theresa Devasia, Angela B Mariotto, K Robin Yabroff, Ahmedin Jemal, Joan Kramer, and Rebecca L Siegel. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians , 72(5):409–436, 2022

2022
[24]

Deep learning-based breast cancer classification through medical imaging modalities: state of the art and research challenges

Ghulam Murtaza, Liyana Shuib, Ainuddin Wahid Abdul Wahab, Ghulam Mujtaba, Ghulam Mujtaba, Henry Friday Nweke, Mohammed Ali Al-garadi, Fariha Zulfiqar, Ghulam Raza, and Nor Aniza Azmi. Deep learning-based breast cancer classification through medical imaging modalities: state of...

2020
[25]

Multi-class breast cancer classification using deep learning convolutional neural network

Majid Nawaz, Adel A Sewissy, and Taysir Hassan A Soliman. Multi-class breast cancer classification using deep learning convolutional neural network. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl , 9(6):316–332, 2018

2018
[26]

Classification of breast cancer histology images using alexnet

Wajahat Nawaz, Sagheer Ahmed, Ali Tahir, and Hassan Aqeel Khan. Classification of breast cancer histology images using alexnet. In Image Analysis and Recognition: 15th International Conference, ICIAR 2018, P´ ovoa de Varzim, Portugal, June 27–29, 2018, Proceedings 15, pages 86...

2018
[27]

Who position paper on mammography screening

World Health Organization. Who position paper on mammography screening. 2024. Accessed: Jul. 17, 2024

2024
[28]

Machine learning and deep learning approach for medical image analysis: diagnosis to detection

Meghavi Rana and Megha Bhushan. Machine learning and deep learning approach for medical image analysis: diagnosis to detection. Multimedia Tools and Applications , 82(17):26731–26769, 2023

2023
[29]

Detection of breast cancer using histopathological image classification dataset with deep learning techniques

VK Reshma, Nancy Arya, Sayed Sayeed Ahmad, Ihab Wattar, Sreenivas Mekala, Shub- ham Joshi, and Daniel Krah. Detection of breast cancer using histopathological image classification dataset with deep learning techniques. BioMed Research International , 2022:8363850, 2022

2022
[30]

Histopathological classi- fication of breast cancer images using a multi-scale input and multi-feature network

Taimoor Shakeel Sheikh, Yonghee Lee, and Migyung Cho. Histopathological classi- fication of breast cancer images using a multi-scale input and multi-feature network. Cancers, 12(8):2031, 2020

2020
[31]

Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

Karen Simonyan. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

2014 arXiv
[32]

A dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification

Fabio A Spanhol, Luiz S Oliveira, Caroline Petitjean, and Laurent Heutte. A dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification. Ieee transactions on biomedical engineering, 63(7):1455–1462, 2015

2015
[33]

Classification of benign and malignant subtypes of breast cancer histopathology imaging using hybrid cnn-lstm based transfer learning

Mahati Munikoti Srikantamurthy, VP Subramanyam Rallabandi, Dawood Babu Dudekula, Sathishkumar Natarajan, and Junhyung Park. Classification of benign and malignant subtypes of breast cancer histopathology imaging using hybrid cnn-lstm based transfer learning. BMC Medical Imagin...

2023
[34]

Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks

Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 6105–6114. PMLR, 2019

2019
[35]

Secs: An effective cnn joint construction strategy for breast cancer histopathological image classification

Dianzhi Yu, Jianwu Lin, Tengbao Cao, Yang Chen, Mingfei Li, and Xin Zhang. Secs: An effective cnn joint construction strategy for breast cancer histopathological image classification. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences , 35(2):810–820, 2023

2023
[36]

De-enhancing the dynamic contrast-enhanced breast mri for robust registration

Yuanjie Zheng, Jingyi Yu, Chandra Kambhamettu, Sarah Englander, Mitchell D Schnall, and Dinggang Shen. De-enhancing the dynamic contrast-enhanced breast mri for robust registration. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, page...

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Breast cancer detection and classification using deep learning xception algorithm

Basem S Abunasser, Mohammed Rasheed J AL-Hiealy, Ihab S Zaqout, and Samy S Abu- Naser. Breast cancer detection and classification using deep learning xception algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , 13(7), 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

A fully integrated computer-aided diagnosis system for digital x-ray mammograms via deep learning detection, segmentation, and classification

Mugahed A Al-Antari, Mohammed A Al-Masni, Mun-Taek Choi, Seung-Moo Han, and Tae-Seong Kim. A fully integrated computer-aided diagnosis system for digital x-ray mammograms via deep learning detection, segmentation, and classification. Interna- tional journal of medical informatics , 117:44–54, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Analyzing histological images using hybrid techniques for early detection of multi-class breast cancer based on fusion features of cnn and hand- crafted

Mohammed Al-Jabbar, Mohammed Alshahrani, Ebrahim Mohammed Senan, and Ibrahim Abdulrab Ahmed. Analyzing histological images using hybrid techniques for early detection of multi-class breast cancer based on fusion features of cnn and hand- crafted. Diagnostics, 13(10):1753, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer classification using deep neural networks and transfer learning

Hanan Aljuaid, Nazik Alturki, Najah Alsubaie, Lucia Cavallaro, and Antonio Liotta. Computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer classification using deep neural networks and transfer learning. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 223:106951, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Going deeper: magnification-invariant approach for breast can- cer classification using histopathological images

S Alkassar, Bilal A Jebur, Mohammed AM Abdullah, Joanna H Al-Khalidy, and Jonathon A Chambers. Going deeper: magnification-invariant approach for breast can- cer classification using histopathological images. IET Computer Vision , 15(2):151–164, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Fabnet: A features agglomeration-based convolutional neural network for multiscale breast cancer histopathology images classi- fication

Muhammad Sadiq Amin and Hyunsik Ahn. Fabnet: A features agglomeration-based convolutional neural network for multiscale breast cancer histopathology images classi- fication. Cancers, 15(4):1013, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

An svm approach towards breast cancer classifica- tion from h&e-stained histopathology images based on integrated features

MA Aswathy and M Jagannath. An svm approach towards breast cancer classifica- tion from h&e-stained histopathology images based on integrated features. Medical & biological engineering & computing , 59(9):1773–1783, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Deep learning-based assessment of tumor-associated stroma for diagnosing breast cancer in histopathology images

Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Jimmy Lin, Ben Glass, Maeve Mullooly, Gretchen L Gier- ach, Mark E Sherman, Nico Karssemeijer, Jeroen Van Der Laak, and Andrew H Beck. Deep learning-based assessment of tumor-associated stroma for diagnosing breast cancer in histopathology images. In 2017 IEEE 14th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI 2017) , pages...

work page 2017