Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Narrative review demonstrates strong diagnostic accuracy of lightweight deep learning models for mammography in low-resource settings, suggesting potential for offline point-of-care screening.
Breast cancer remains a leading cause of mortality among women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), compounded by fewer radiologists available and resources for diagnosis. A narrative review that summarizes 45 peer-reviewed publications to date from 2018 to 2025 is presented for deep learning (DL) models for mammography detection for breast cancer, targeting low-resource-critical architectures for development in LMIC settings. We compare convolutional neural networks (CNNs), hybrid CNN-support vector machine (SVM) models, recurrent/LSTM networks, and lightweight architectures such as MobileNet and EfficientNet. In quantitative synthesis the reported diagnostic accuracy for MobileNet is between 89 and 92%, supported with 128 MB RAM and 0.3 GFLOPs. Therefore it is appropriate for offline edge devices (smartphones, NVIDIA Jetson Nano). EfficientNet achieves 91–94% accuracy—though it requires stable internet to enable cloud deployment, due to its greater parameter size (5.3 million). Both architectures reduce false positives by 7 to 69% and false negatives by 9% compared to traditional computer-aided detection, though most evidence is retrospective. The most important contributions from this review are: (1) a quantitative comparison of efficiency for edge versus cloud deployment, (2) detection of dataset bias (no LMIC-specific validation exists), and (3) practical recommendations regarding infrastructure, regulatory pathways, and privacy-preserving federated learning. Limitations include cross-study heterogeneity in datasets (CBIS-DDSM, INbreast, MIAS) and evaluation protocols. We conclude that MobileNet and EfficientNet provide good trade-offs for LMICs but call for prospective trials and locally curated datasets before clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chitiza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: