mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Analyzing Image Encoder Choices and Graph Homophily in GCN Frameworks for Breast Ultrasound Classification

arXiv 2607.12054 ↗First posted 13 Jul 2026eess.IV cs.CV cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Breast ultrasound is widely used for screening, yet automated analysis remains challenging due to speckle noise, acquisition variability, and weak separation of benign and malignant cases in standard ultrasound imaging. Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) have recently emerged as a promising approach by leveraging relationships among similar patient samples. However, it remains unclear how the choice of image encoder influences graph construction and downstream classification performance. In this work, we systematically evaluate five image encoders spanning convolutional and transformer-based architectures for GCN-based breast ultrasound classification. Image embeddings are used to construct cosine similarity k-nearest-neighbor graphs, which are classified using a single-layer GCN with a linear classification head. Across three patientwise cross-validation folds, higher-capacity encoders consistently improve graph homophily and downstream classification performance, yielding gains in accuracy, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Moreover, test-set graph homophily exhibits a strong linear correlation with classification accuracy, with higher-capacity encoders consistently occupying the high-homophily, high-accuracy region suggesting that encoder-driven improvements in graph structure are a key mechanism underlying the observed performance gains. These findings establish encoder selection as a critical factor in graph-based breast ultrasound classification and identify graph homophily as a key indicator linking representation quality to downstream classification performance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.

Builds on

14 of 33 references.

References · 14

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,361
  4. 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
  5. 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,968
  6. 2023Self-Supervised Learning from Images with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecturecited by 1,039
  7. 2019Deep Learning for Segmentation using an Open Large-Scale Dataset in 2D Echocardiographycited by 244
  8. 2021Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks?cited by 182
  9. 2020USCL: Pretraining Deep Ultrasound Image Diagnosis Model through Video Contrastive Representation Learningcited by 34
  10. 2024UltraSam: A Foundation Model for Ultrasound using Large Open-Access Segmentation Datasetscited by 24
  11. 2018Simultaneous Segmentation and Classification of Bone Surfaces from Ultrasound Using a Multi-feature Guided CNNcited by 16
  12. 2022HoVer-Trans: Anatomy-aware HoVer-Transformer for ROI-free Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Ultrasound Imagescited by 15
2 more
  1. 2023Deep Learning in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Decade of Progress and Future Directionscited by 11
  2. 2023When Do Graph Neural Networks Help with Node Classification? Investigating the Impact of Homophily Principle on Node Distinguishabilitycited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.