ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Deep learning for detection of iso-dense, obscure masses in mammographically dense breasts.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the performance of deep learning in isodense/obscure masses in dense breasts. To build and validate a deep learning (DL) model using core radiology principles and analyze its performance in isodense/obscure masses. To show performance on screening mammography as well as diagnostic mammography distribution.
methodsThis was a retrospective, single-institution, multi-centre study with external validation. For model building, we took a 3-pronged approach. First, we explicitly taught the network to learn features other than density differences: such as spiculations and architectural distortion. Second, we used the opposite breast to enable the detection of asymmetries. Third, we systematically enhanced each image by piece-wise-linear transformation. We tested the network on a diagnostic mammography dataset (2569 images with 243 cancers, January to June 2018) and a screening mammography dataset (2146 images with 59 cancers, patient recruitment from January to April 2021) from a different centre (external validation).
resultsWhen trained with our proposed technique (and compared with baseline network), sensitivity for malignancy increased from 82.7 to 84.7% at 0.2 False positives per image (FPI) in the diagnostic mammography dataset, 67.9 to 73.8% in the subset of patients with dense breasts, 74.6 to 85.3 in the subset of patients with isodense/obscure cancers and 84.9 to 88.7 in an external validation test set with a screening mammography distribution. We showed that our sensitivity exceeded currently reported values (0.90 at 0.2 FPI) on a public benchmark dataset (INBreast).
conclusionModelling traditional mammographic teaching into a DL framework can help improve cancer detection accuracy in dense breasts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Incorporating medical knowledge into neural network design can help us overcome some limitations associated with specific modalities. In this paper, we show how one such deep neural network can help improve performance on mammographically dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • Although state-of-the-art deep learning networks achieve good results in cancer detection in mammography in general, isodense, obscure masses and mammographically dense breasts posed a challenge to deep learning networks. • Collaborative network design and incorporation of traditional radiology teaching into the deep learning approach helped mitigate the problem. • The accuracy of deep learning networks may be translatable to different patient distributions. We showed the results of our network on screening as well as diagnostic mammography datasets.
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.