mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Image-Based Breast Implant Detection for Mammography Dataset Curation and Near-Real-Time Deployment: Comparing Foundation Models and Task-Specific Convolutional Models

arXiv 2610.03817 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026eess.IV cs.CV q-bio.TOcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Purpose: To evaluate the performance-feasibility tradeoffs of foundation models (FMs) and task-specific convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained from scratch for breast implant classification in 2D mammography, with emphasis on suitability for near real-time clinical deployment. Methods: We evaluated four models: two FMs (RAD-DINO and MammoCLIP) and two CNNs trained from scratch for implant prediction (ResNet18 and our lightweight ResNetLite). Using the Emory Breast Imaging Dataset, 5,000 unilateral screening mammograms were used for training/validation and 1,000 manually reviewed unilateral images were held out for testing. For the FMs, global image embeddings from the pretrained encoder were classified using a support vector machine (SVM). The CNNs were trained end-to-end on 2D mammograms, with ResNetLite optimized via grid search over depth and width to balance accuracy and efficiency. Performance was evaluated using AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, embedding visualization, and inference-latency. Results: All models demonstrated strong performance on held-out test data (n = 1,000). MammoCLIP achieved the highest AUROC (0.999) with the quickest training time of 493 seconds. RAD-DINO achieved the highest sensitivity (0.980; accuracy 0.989) but had the slowest inference and training times. ResNet18 and MammoCLIP achieved comparable accuracy (0.985). ResNetLite showed no statistically significant difference from ResNet18 (AUROC 0.993; accuracy 0.976) despite using only 1.4% of ResNet18's parameters, and had the fastest inference time. Conclusion: FMs and task-specific CNN models reliably detect breast implants on 2D mammography. Model selection is best guided by deployment context: MammoCLIP for GPU-equipped hospital settings requiring scalable integration, and lightweight CNNs such as ResNetLite for resource-constrained or edge deployments.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

13 of 33 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  3. 2017MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applicationscited by 3,845
  4. 2024Exploring scalable medical image encoders beyond text supervisioncited by 132
  5. 2024Mammo-CLIP: A Vision Language Foundation Model to Enhance Data Efficiency and Robustness in Mammographycited by 38
  6. 2021How Transferable Are Self-supervised Features in Medical Image Classification Tasks?cited by 33
  7. 2024Foundation Models in Radiology: What, How, When, Why and Why Notcited by 28
  8. 2024Few-shot Adaptation of Medical Vision-Language Modelscited by 24
  9. 2023Multimodal Foundation Models Exploit Text to Make Medical Image Predictionscited by 20
  10. 2025Foundation Models in Medical Imaging: A Review and Outlookcited by 8
  11. 2024Radio-opaque artefacts in digital mammography: automatic detection and analysis of downstream effectscited by 4
  12. 2025Bias and Generalizability of Foundation Models across Datasets in Breast Mammographycited by 4
1 more
  1. 2025MammoDINO: Anatomically Aware Self-Supervision for Mammographic Imagescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.