Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31397859›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Assessment of Machine Learning of Breast Pathology Structures for Automated Differentiation of Breast Cancer and High-Risk Proliferative Lesions.

Ezgi Mercan, Sachin Mehta, Jamen Bartlett, Linda G Shapiro, Donald L Weaver, Joann G Elmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Knowledge-Informed Machine Learning for Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Review.IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Improving DCIS diagnosis and predictive outcome by applying artificial intelligence.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021
    Review
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.

Ezgi MercanPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.
Sachin MehtaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.
Jamen BartlettUniversity of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington.
Linda G ShapiroPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.
Donald L WeaverDepartment of Pathology and University of Vermont Cancer Center, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Joann G ElmoreDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles.

Funding

Accuracy of Breast Pathology and the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA140560 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
Digital Pathology_Accuracy Viewing Behavior and Image CharacterizationR01CA172343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHAPIRO, LINDA, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
Improving Melanoma Pathology Accuracy through Computer Vision Techniques - the IMPACT StudyR01CA200690 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, SHAPIRO, LINDA · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
A Unified Machine Learning Package for Cancer DiagnosisU01CA231782 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, SHAPIRO, LINDA · 2018 to 2020
$980k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140560NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172343NCI NIH HHS R01 CA200690NCI NIH HHS U01 CA231782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Following recent US Food and Drug Administration approval, adoption of whole slide imaging in clinical settings may be imminent, and diagnostic accuracy, particularly among challenging breast biopsy specimens, may benefit from computerized diagnostic support tools. Objective: To develop and evaluate computer vision methods to assist pathologists in diagnosing the full spectrum of breast biopsy samples, from benign to invasive cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study, 240 breast biopsies from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries that varied by breast density, diagnosis, patient age, and biopsy type were selected, reviewed, and categorized by 3 expert pathologists as benign, atypia, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and invasive cancer. The atypia and DCIS cases were oversampled to increase statistical power. High-resolution digital slide images were obtained, and 2 automated image features (tissue distribution feature and structure feature) were developed and evaluated according to the consensus diagnosis of the expert panel. The performance of the automated image analysis methods was compared with independent interpretations from 87 practicing US pathologists. Data analysis was performed between February 2017 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy defined by consensus reference standard of 3 experienced breast pathologists. Results: The accuracy of machine learning tissue distribution features, structure features, and pathologists for classification of invasive cancer vs noninvasive cancer was 0.94, 0.91, and 0.98, respectively; the accuracy of classification of atypia and DCIS vs benign tissue was 0.70, 0.70, and 0.81, respectively; and the accuracy of classification of DCIS vs atypia was 0.83, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively. The sensitivity of both machine learning features was lower than that of the pathologists for the invasive vs noninvasive classification (tissue distribution feature, 0.70; structure feature, 0.49; pathologists, 0.84) but higher for the classification of atypia and DCIS vs benign cases (tissue distribution feature, 0.79; structure feature, 0.85; pathologists, 0.72) and the classification of DCIS vs atypia (tissue distribution feature, 0.88; structure feature, 0.89; pathologists, 0.70). For the DCIS vs atypia classification, the specificity of the machine learning feature classification was similar to that of the pathologists (tissue distribution feature, 0.78; structure feature, 0.80; pathologists, 0.82). Conclusion and Relevance: The computer-based automated approach to interpreting breast pathology showed promise, especially as a diagnostic aid in differentiating DCIS from atypical hyperplasia.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, DuctalCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansReference StandardsRegistriesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31397859
PMCPMC6692690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.