Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291787›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Deep Learning Models for Automated Assessment of Breast Density Using Multiple Mammographic Image Types.

Bastien Rigaud, Olena O Weaver, Jennifer B Dennison, Muhammad Awais, Brian M Anderson, Ting-Yu D Chiang, Wei T Yang, Jessica W T Leung, Samir M Hanash, Kristy K Brock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bastien RigaudDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Olena O WeaverDepartment of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Jennifer B DennisonDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Muhammad AwaisDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Brian M AndersonDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2748-1444
Ting-Yu D ChiangDivision of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Wei T YangDepartment of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Jessica W T LeungDepartment of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Samir M HanashDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Kristy K BrockDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9364-5040
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, convolutional neural network (CNN) models have been proposed to automate the assessment of breast density, breast cancer detection or risk stratification using single image modality. However, analysis of breast density using multiple mammographic types using clinical data has not been reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate pre-trained EfficientNetB0 deep learning (DL) models for automated assessment of breast density using multiple mammographic types with and without clinical information to improve reliability and versatility of reporting. 120,000 for-processing and for-presentation full-field digital mammograms (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthesized 2D images from 5032 women were retrospectively analyzed. Each participant underwent up to 3 screening examinations and completed a questionnaire at each screening encounter. Pre-trained EfficientNetB0 DL models with or without clinical history were optimized. The DL models were evaluated using BI-RADS (fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense) versus binary (non-dense or dense) density classification. Pre-trained EfficientNetB0 model performances were compared using inter-observer and commercial software (Volpara) variabilities. Results show that the average Fleiss' Kappa score between-observers ranged from 0.31-0.50 and 0.55-0.69 for the BI-RADS and binary classifications, respectively, showing higher uncertainty among experts. Volpara-observer agreement was 0.33 and 0.54 for BI-RADS and binary classifications, respectively, showing fair to moderate agreement. However, our proposed pre-trained EfficientNetB0 DL models-observer agreement was 0.61-0.66 and 0.70-0.75 for BI-RADS and binary classifications, respectively, showing moderate to substantial agreement. Overall results show that the best breast density estimation was achieved using for-presentation FFDM and DBT images without added clinical information. Pre-trained EfficientNetB0 model can automatically assess breast density from any images modality type, with the best results obtained from for-presentation FFDM and DBT, which are the most common image archived in clinical practice.

Indexed as

deep learning (DL)digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)full-field digital mammograms (FFDM)synthesized 2D images

Identifiers

PMID36291787
PMCPMC9599904
OpenAlexW4306149780

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.