Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34398205›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

A Data Set and Deep Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Masses and Architectural Distortions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.

Mateusz Buda, Ashirbani Saha, Ruth Walsh, Sujata Ghate, Nianyi Li, Albert Swiecicki, Joseph Y Lo, Maciej A Mazurowski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mateusz BudaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Ashirbani SahaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Ruth WalshDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Sujata GhateDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Nianyi LiDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Albert SwiecickiDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Joseph Y LoDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Maciej A MazurowskiDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University · US

Funding

Machine learning and collaborative filtering tools for personalized education in digital breast tomosynthesisR01EB021360 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAZUROWSKI, MACIEJ A. · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB021360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer screening is among the most common radiological tasks, with more than 39 million examinations performed each year. While it has been among the most studied medical imaging applications of artificial intelligence, the development and evaluation of algorithms are hindered by the lack of well-annotated, large-scale publicly available data sets. Objectives: To curate, annotate, and make publicly available a large-scale data set of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images to facilitate the development and evaluation of artificial intelligence algorithms for breast cancer screening; to develop a baseline deep learning model for breast cancer detection; and to test this model using the data set to serve as a baseline for future research. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study, 16 802 DBT examinations with at least 1 reconstruction view available, performed between August 26, 2014, and January 29, 2018, were obtained from Duke Health System and analyzed. From the initial cohort, examinations were divided into 4 groups and split into training and test sets for the development and evaluation of a deep learning model. Images with foreign objects or spot compression views were excluded. Data analysis was conducted from January 2018 to October 2020. Exposures: Screening DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The detection algorithm was evaluated with breast-based free-response receiver operating characteristic curve and sensitivity at 2 false positives per volume. Results: The curated data set contained 22 032 reconstructed DBT volumes that belonged to 5610 studies from 5060 patients with a mean (SD) age of 55 (11) years and 5059 (100.0%) women. This included 4 groups of studies: (1) 5129 (91.4%) normal studies; (2) 280 (5.0%) actionable studies, for which where additional imaging was needed but no biopsy was performed; (3) 112 (2.0%) benign biopsied studies; and (4) 89 studies (1.6%) with cancer. Our data set included masses and architectural distortions that were annotated by 2 experienced radiologists. Our deep learning model reached breast-based sensitivity of 65% (39 of 60; 95% CI, 56%-74%) at 2 false positives per DBT volume on a test set of 460 examinations from 418 patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The large, diverse, and curated data set presented in this study could facilitate the development and evaluation of artificial intelligence algorithms for breast cancer screening by providing data for training as well as a common set of cases for model validation. The performance of the model developed in this study showed that the task remains challenging; its performance could serve as a baseline for future model development.

Indexed as

Datasets as TopicDeep LearningMammographyAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID34398205
PMCPMC8369362
OpenAlexW3195487931

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.