MMFM Breast-Imaging Baselines — Single-Modality ResNet-18 Checkpoints

ResNet-18 binary (benign vs. malignant) classification checkpoints, trained per-dataset on eight public breast-imaging sources spanning ultrasound, mammography, and DCE-MRI. Code: MMFM repo. Full write-up, methodology, and comparison to each source paper's own numbers: docs/latex/main.tex in the repo.

These are single-modality baselines, not the 3-branch fusion model. Each checkpoint is models.SingleBackboneClassifier (one ResNet-18 backbone, ImageNet-pretrained, first conv adapted for non-RGB inputs where applicable) — see models/backbone.py / training/train.py in the repo for the loading code.

Files

File Dataset Modality Evaluation Test accuracy Notes
busbra_resnet18_fold1.pth BUS-BRA Ultrasound 1 of 5 official CV folds 0.828 ± 0.023 (5-fold mean) Paper-matched recipe; see Table 2 in the report
busi_resnet18_fold1.pth BUSI Ultrasound 1 of 5 stratified CV folds 0.884 ± 0.038 (5-fold mean) Full 780-image release
busc_resnet18_fold1.pth BUSC Ultrasound 1 of 5 stratified CV folds 0.992 ± 0.010 (5-fold mean) Near-perfect result flagged as unverified — Grad-CAM analysis in the report suggests possible shortcut learning (no ROI crop in this dataset's preprocessing); do not treat as a working classifier without further checks
breast_lesions_usg_resnet18_fold1.pth BrEaST-Lesions USG Ultrasound 1 of 5 case-level CV folds 0.726 ± 0.042 (5-fold mean) High fold-to-fold variance, ~51 test cases/fold
mias_resnet18_fold1.pth mini-MIAS Mammography 1 of 5 patient-level CV folds 0.599 ± 0.096 (5-fold mean) Weak result; misses ~51% of malignant cases (see per-class bias table in the report)
breastdm_resnet18.pth BreastDM DCE-MRI (9-channel img9Se) Official train/val split 0.880 Within 0.002 accuracy of the paper's own LG-CAFN fusion model; specificity is weak (0.542)
cdd_cesm_resnet18.pth CDD-CESM Mammography (contrast-enhanced) Single patient-level split, smoke test 0.614 Not a tuned reproduction — no augmentation search or class weighting yet
cmmd_resnet18.pth CMMD Mammography Single patient-level split, smoke test 0.758 Class-weighted CE; not a tuned reproduction — no CV, no multi-view aggregation

For the 5-fold datasets, this is one fold's checkpoint, not an ensemble or the averaged model — reported accuracy is the 5-fold mean from the full report for context, not this specific file's number. See the repo's docs/results_report.md and docs/per_class_results.md for per-fold and per-class (sensitivity/specificity/FP-vs-FN bias) detail.

Known limitations (see the full report for detail)

  • BUSC's near-perfect accuracy is flagged, not confirmed — Grad-CAM shows diffuse, non-lesion-localized activation, consistent with the dataset's lack of an ROI crop step.
  • mini-MIAS, CDD-CESM, and CMMD are weak/preliminary results, not submission-ready baselines.
  • Most datasets use image- or row-level splits, not patient-level, where the source release doesn't ship a patient identifier (BUSI, BUSC) — possible near-duplicate leakage across folds.

Source data attribution

Intended use

Research and educational use for breast-imaging CAD baselines and reproduction studies. Not validated for clinical use. Several of these checkpoints (BUSC, mini-MIAS, CDD-CESM, CMMD) have known weaknesses documented above and in the linked report — read those sections before using any of these checkpoints for anything beyond a baseline comparison.

Downloads last month

-

Downloads are not tracked for this model. How to track
Inference Providers NEW
This model isn't deployed by any Inference Provider. 🙋 Ask for provider support