Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37253894›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023

Global Radiomic Features from Mammography for Predicting Difficult-To-Interpret Normal Cases.

Somphone Siviengphanom, Ziba Gandomkar, Sarah J Lewis, Patrick C Brennan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Somphone SiviengphanomMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. ssiv6387@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2891-9217
Ziba GandomkarMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Sarah J LewisMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Patrick C BrennanMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work aimed to investigate whether global radiomic features (GRFs) from mammograms can predict difficult-to-interpret normal cases (NCs). Assessments from 537 readers interpreting 239 normal mammograms were used to categorise cases as 120 difficult-to-interpret and 119 easy-to-interpret based on cases having the highest and lowest difficulty scores, respectively. Using lattice- and squared-based approaches, 34 handcrafted GRFs per image were extracted and normalised. Three classifiers were constructed: (i) CC and (ii) MLO using the GRFs from corresponding craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique images only, based on the random forest technique for distinguishing difficult- from easy-to-interpret NCs, and (iii) CC + MLO using the median predictive scores from both CC and MLO models. Useful GRFs for the CC and MLO models were recognised using a scree test. The CC and MLO models were trained and validated using the leave-one-out-cross-validation. The models' performances were assessed by the AUC and compared using the DeLong test. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine if the 34 GRFs differed between difficult- and easy-to-interpret NCs and if difficulty level based on the traditional breast density (BD) categories differed among 115 low-BD and 124 high-BD NCs. The CC + MLO model achieved higher performance (0.71 AUC) than the individual CC and MLO model alone (0.66 each), but statistically non-significant difference was found (all p > 0.05). Six GRFs were identified to be valuable in describing difficult-to-interpret NCs. Twenty features, when compared between difficult- and easy-to-interpret NCs, differed significantly (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in difficulty between low- and high-BD NCs (p = 0.709). GRF mammographic analysis can predict difficult-to-interpret NCs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyBreast DensityFemaleHumansRandom ForestBreast cancerDifficult normal casesGistMachine learningMammographyRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID37253894
PMCPMC10406750
OpenAlexW4378782729

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.