Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37982014›Full record

ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2020

Robust Radiomic Feature Selection in Digital Mammography: Understanding the Effect of Imaging Acquisition Physics Using Phantom and Clinical Data Analysis.

Raymond J Acciavatti, Eric A Cohen, Omid Haji Maghsoudi, Aimilia Gastounioti, Lauren Pantalone, Meng-Kang Hsieh, Emily F Conant, Christopher G Scott, Stacey J Winham, Karla Kerlikowske and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Raymond J AcciavattiUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Eric A CohenUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Omid Haji MaghsoudiUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Aimilia GastouniotiUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Lauren PantaloneUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Meng-Kang HsiehUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Emily F ConantUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Christopher G ScottMayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester MN 55905.
Stacey J WinhamMayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester MN 55905.
Karla KerlikowskeUCSF Women's Health Clinical Research Center, 550 16 Street, San Francisco CA 94143.
Celine VachonMayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester MN 55905.
Andrew D A MaidmentUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Despina KontosUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiology, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104.

Funding

Penn Center for Innovation in Personalized Breast ScreeningU54CA163313 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARMSTRONG, KATRINA, SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 2011 to 2017
$7.4M
Radiomic phenotypes of breast parenchyma and association with breast cancer risk and detectionR01CA207084 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M, KONTOS, DESPINA · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207084NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies have shown that combining calculations of radiomic features with estimates of mammographic density results in an even better assessment of breast cancer risk than density alone. However, to ensure that risk assessment calculations are consistent across different imaging acquisition settings, it is important to identify features that are not overly sensitive to changes in these settings. In this study, digital mammography (DM) images of an anthropomorphic phantom ("Rachel", Gammex 169, Madison, WI) were acquired at various technique settings. We varied kV and mAs, which control contrast and noise, respectively. DM images in women with negative screening exams were also analyzed. Radiomic features were calculated in the raw ("FOR PROCESSING") DM images; i.e., grey-level histogram, co-occurrence, run length, fractal dimension, Gabor Wavelet, local binary pattern, Laws, and co-occurrence Laws features. For each feature, the range of variation across technique settings in phantom images was calculated. This range was scaled against the range of variation in the clinical distribution (specifically, the range corresponding to the middle 90% of the distribution). In order for a radiomic feature to be considered robust, this metric of imaging acquisition variation (IAV) should be as small as possible (approaching zero). An IAV threshold of 0.25 was proposed for the purpose of this study. Out of 341 features, 284 features (83%) met the threshold IAV ≤ 0.25. In conclusion, we have developed a method to identify robust radiomic features in DM.

Indexed as

Anthropomorphic PhantomBreast CancerDigital MammographyRadiomicsRisk AssessmentRobustness

Identifiers

PMID37982014
PMCPMC10655898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.