Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30771257›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.

Xiangyuan Ma, Jun Wei, Chuan Zhou, Mark A Helvie, Heang-Ping Chan, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Yao Lu

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiangyuan MaDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jun WeiDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Chuan ZhouDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Mark A HelvieDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Heang-Ping ChanDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lubomir M HadjiiskiDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Yao LuSchool of Data and Computer Science, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, P.R. China.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

Quantitative Parenchyma Descriptor as an Imaging Biomarker of Breast Cancer RiskU01CA195599 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WEI, JUN · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
China Department of Science and Technology 2016YFB0200602Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology 2017B020210001Guangzhou Science and Technology Creative Key Grant 201604020003NCI NIH HHS U01 CA195599NIH HHS U01 CA195599NSFC 11401601NSFC 81830052Science and Technology Innovative Project of Guangdong Province 2015B010110003Science and Technology Innovative Project of Guangdong Province 2015B020233008Science and Technology Innovative Project of Guangdong Province 2016B030307003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop a fully automated deep learning approach for identification of the pectoral muscle on mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms and evaluate its performance in comparison to our previously developed texture-field orientation (TFO) method using conventional image feature analysis. Pectoral muscle segmentation is an important step for automated image analyses such as breast density or parenchymal pattern classification, lesion detection, and multiview correlation. MATERIALS AND

methodsInstitutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained before data collection. A dataset of 729 MLO-view mammograms including 637 digitized film mammograms (DFM) and 92 digital mammograms (DM) from our previous study was used for the training and validation of our deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) segmentation method. In addition, we collected an independent set of 203 DMs from 131 patients for testing. The film mammograms were digitized at a pixel size of 50 μm × 50 μm with a Lumiscan digitizer. All DMs were acquired with GE systems at a pixel size of 100 μm × 100 μm. An experienced MQSA radiologist manually drew the pectoral muscle boundary on each mammogram as the reference standard. We trained the DCNN to estimate a probability map of the pectoral muscle region on mammograms. The DCNN consisted of a contracting path to capture multiresolution image context and a symmetric expanding path for prediction of the pectoral muscle region. Three DCNN structures were compared for automated identification of pectoral muscles. Tenfold cross-validation was used in training of the DCNNs. After training, we applied the ten trained models during cross-validation to the independent DM test set. The predicted pectoral muscle region of each test DM was obtained as the mean probability map by averaging the ensemble of probability maps from the ten models. The DCNN-segmented pectoral muscle was evaluated by three performance measures relative to the reference standard: (a) the percent overlap area (POA) of the pectoral muscle regions, (b) the Hausdorff distance (Hdist), and (c) the average Euclidean distance (AvgDist) between the boundaries. The results were compared to those obtained with the TFO method, used as our baseline. A two-tailed paired t test was performed to examine the significance in the differences between the DCNN and the baseline.

resultsIn the ten test partitions of the cross-validation set, the DCNN achieved a mean POA of 96.5 ± 2.9%, a mean Hdist of 2.26 ± 1.31 mm, and a mean AvgDist of 0.78 ± 0.58 mm, while the corresponding measures by the baseline method were 94.2 ± 4.8%, 3.69 ± 2.48 mm, and 1.30 ± 1.22 mm, respectively. For the independent DM test set, the DCNN achieved a mean POA of 93.7% ± 6.9%, a mean Hdist of 3.80 ± 3.21 mm, and a mean AvgDist of 1.49 ± 1.62 mm comparing to 86.9% ± 16.0%, 7.18 ± 14.22 mm, and 3.98 ± 14.13 mm, respectively, by the baseline method.

conclusionIn comparison to the TFO method, DCNN significantly improved the accuracy of pectoral muscle identification on mammograms (P < 0.05).

Indexed as

Deep LearningNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyObserver VariationPectoralis MusclesRadiologistsdeep convolutional neural network (DCNN)mammogrammediolateral oblique (MLO) viewpectoral muscle

Identifiers

PMID30771257
PMCPMC6510623
OpenAlexW2911423702

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.