Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29363774›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2018

Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network.

Juhun Lee, Robert M Nishikawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Artificial Intelligence in Breast X-Ray Imaging.Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Juhun LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Ave.,, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Robert M NishikawaDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Ave.,, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.

Funding

Detecting Mammographically-Occult Cancer in Women with Dense BreastsR21CA216495 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NISHIKAWA, ROBERT M · 2017 to 2018
$371k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA216495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a fully automated algorithm for mammographic breast density estimation using deep learning.

methodOur algorithm used a fully convolutional network, which is a deep learning framework for image segmentation, to segment both the breast and the dense fibroglandular areas on mammographic images. Using the segmented breast and dense areas, our algorithm computed the breast percent density (PD), which is the faction of dense area in a breast. Our dataset included full-field digital screening mammograms of 604 women, which included 1208 mediolateral oblique (MLO) and 1208 craniocaudal (CC) views. We allocated 455, 58, and 91 of 604 women and their exams into training, testing, and validation datasets, respectively. We established ground truth for the breast and the dense fibroglandular areas via manual segmentation and segmentation using a simple thresholding based on BI-RADS density assessments by radiologists, respectively. Using the mammograms and ground truth, we fine-tuned a pretrained deep learning network to train the network to segment both the breast and the fibroglandular areas. Using the validation dataset, we evaluated the performance of the proposed algorithm against radiologists' BI-RADS density assessments. Specifically, we conducted a correlation analysis between a BI-RADS density assessment of a given breast and its corresponding PD estimate by the proposed algorithm. In addition, we evaluated our algorithm in terms of its ability to classify the BI-RADS density using PD estimates, and its ability to provide consistent PD estimates for the left and the right breast and the MLO and CC views of the same women. To show the effectiveness of our algorithm, we compared the performance of our algorithm against a state of the art algorithm, laboratory for individualized breast radiodensity assessment (LIBRA).

resultThe PD estimated by our algorithm correlated well with BI-RADS density ratings by radiologists. Pearson's rho values of our algorithm for CC view, MLO view, and CC-MLO-averaged were 0.81, 0.79, and 0.85, respectively, while those of LIBRA were 0.58, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively. For CC view and CC-MLO averaged cases, the difference in rho values between the proposed algorithm and LIBRA showed statistical significance (P < 0.006). In addition, our algorithm provided reliable PD estimates for the left and the right breast (Pearson's ρ > 0.87) and for the MLO and CC views (Pearson's ρ = 0.76). However, LIBRA showed a lower Pearson's rho value (0.66) for both the left and right breasts for the CC view. In addition, our algorithm showed an excellent ability to separate each sub BI-RADS breast density class (statistically significant, p-values = 0.0001 or less); only one comparison pair, density 1 and density 2 in the CC view, was not statistically significant (P = 0.54). However, LIBRA failed to separate breasts in density 1 and 2 for both the CC and MLO views (P > 0.64).

conclusionWe have developed a new deep learning based algorithm for breast density segmentation and estimation. We showed that the proposed algorithm correlated well with BI-RADS density assessments by radiologists and outperformed an existing state of the art algorithm.

Indexed as

Breast DensityAlgorithmsAutomationBreastHumansImage Processing, Computer-Assistedbreast densitydeep learningmammographysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID29363774
PMCPMC7153401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.