Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27908154›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2016

Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: Deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography.

Ravi K Samala, Heang-Ping Chan, Lubomir Hadjiiski, Mark A Helvie, Jun Wei, Kenny Cha

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
44.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 288 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. AMS-U-Net: automatic mass segmentation in digital breast tomosynthesis via U-Net.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Survey of Convolutional Neural Network in Breast Cancer.Computer modeling in engineering & sciences : CMES · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. On the Analyses of Medical Images Using Traditional Machine Learning Techniques and Convolutional Neural Networks.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ravi K SamalaDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
Heang-Ping ChanDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
Lubomir HadjiiskiDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
Mark A HelvieDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
Jun WeiDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
Kenny ChaDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Improvement of microcalcification detection in digital breast tomosynthesisR01CA151443 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHAN, HEANG-PING · 2011 to 2015
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA151443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDevelop a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for masses in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) volume using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) with transfer learning from mammograms.

methodsA data set containing 2282 digitized film and digital mammograms and 324 DBT volumes were collected with IRB approval. The mass of interest on the images was marked by an experienced breast radiologist as reference standard. The data set was partitioned into a training set (2282 mammograms with 2461 masses and 230 DBT views with 228 masses) and an independent test set (94 DBT views with 89 masses). For DCNN training, the region of interest (ROI) containing the mass (true positive) was extracted from each image. False positive (FP) ROIs were identified at prescreening by their previously developed CAD systems. After data augmentation, a total of 45 072 mammographic ROIs and 37 450 DBT ROIs were obtained. Data normalization and reduction of non-uniformity in the ROIs across heterogeneous data was achieved using a background correction method applied to each ROI. A DCNN with four convolutional layers and three fully connected (FC) layers was first trained on the mammography data. Jittering and dropout techniques were used to reduce overfitting. After training with the mammographic ROIs, all weights in the first three convolutional layers were frozen, and only the last convolution layer and the FC layers were randomly initialized again and trained using the DBT training ROIs. The authors compared the performances of two CAD systems for mass detection in DBT: one used the DCNN-based approach and the other used their previously developed feature-based approach for FP reduction. The prescreening stage was identical in both systems, passing the same set of mass candidates to the FP reduction stage. For the feature-based CAD system, 3D clustering and active contour method was used for segmentation; morphological, gray level, and texture features were extracted and merged with a linear discriminant classifier to score the detected masses. For the DCNN-based CAD system, ROIs from five consecutive slices centered at each candidate were passed through the trained DCNN and a mass likelihood score was generated. The performances of the CAD systems were evaluated using free-response ROC curves and the performance difference was analyzed using a non-parametric method.

resultsBefore transfer learning, the DCNN trained only on mammograms with an AUC of 0.99 classified DBT masses with an AUC of 0.81 in the DBT training set. After transfer learning with DBT, the AUC improved to 0.90. For breast-based CAD detection in the test set, the sensitivity for the feature-based and the DCNN-based CAD systems was 83% and 91%, respectively, at 1 FP/DBT volume. The difference between the performances for the two systems was statistically significant (p-value < 0.05).

conclusionsThe image patterns learned from the mammograms were transferred to the mass detection on DBT slices through the DCNN. This study demonstrated that large data sets collected from mammography are useful for developing new CAD systems for DBT, alleviating the problem and effort of collecting entirely new large data sets for the new modality.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMammographyNeural Networks, ComputerBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID27908154
PMCPMC5135717
OpenAlexW2559553341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.