ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2022
Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement Categorization Using Deep Learning: Outperforming the Radiologist.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Machine Learning to Breast MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Analysis of the sample size used in clinical MRI studies.PloS one · 2025Article
- AI Applications to Breast MRI: Today and Tomorrow.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2024Review
- Review
- Ethical guidance for reporting and evaluating claims of AI outperforming human doctors.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Explainable Precision Medicine in Breast MRI: A Combined Radiomics and Deep Learning Approach for the Classification of Contrast Agent Uptake.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A background parenchymal enhancement quantification framework of breast magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Automated Background Parenchymal Enhancement Measurements at MRI to Predict Breast Cancer Risk.Radiology · 2023Article
- Machine learning-ready remote sensing data for Maya archaeology.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities.Radiology · 2023Review
- Deep learning in breast imaging.BJR open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBackground parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is assessed on breast MRI reports as mandated by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) but is prone to inter and intrareader variation. Semiautomated and fully automated BPE assessment tools have been developed but none has surpassed radiologist BPE designations. PURPOSE: To develop a deep learning model for automated BPE classification and to compare its performance with current standard-of-care radiology report BPE designations. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Consecutive high-risk patients (i.e. >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) who underwent contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI from October 2013 to January 2019. The study included 5224 breast MRIs, divided into 3998 training, 444 validation, and 782 testing exams. On radiology reports, 1286 exams were categorized as high BPE (i.e., marked or moderate) and 3938 as low BPE (i.e., mild or minimal). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 1.5 T or 3 T system; one precontrast and three postcontrast phases of fat-saturated T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. ASSESSMENT: Breast MRIs were used to develop two deep learning models (Slab artificial intelligence (AI); maximum intensity projection [MIP] AI) for BPE categorization using radiology report BPE labels. Models were tested on a heldout test sets using radiology report BPE and three-reader averaged consensus as the reference standards. STATISTICAL TESTS: Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Associations between high BPE and BI-RADS assessments were evaluated using McNemar's chi-square test (α* = 0.025).
resultsThe Slab AI model significantly outperformed the MIP AI model across the full test set (area under the curve of 0.84 vs. 0.79) using the radiology report reference standard. Using three-reader consensus BPE labels reference standard, our AI model significantly outperformed radiology report BPE labels. Finally, the AI model was significantly more likely than the radiologist to assign "high BPE" to suspicious breast MRIs and significantly less likely than the radiologist to assign "high BPE" to negative breast MRIs. DATA
conclusionFully automated BPE assessments for breast MRIs could be more accurate than BPE assessments from radiology reports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.