ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Capability and reliability of deep learning models to make density predictions on low-dose mammograms.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep learning models to predict mammographic density jointly on standard dose and low dose images.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Breast density is associated with the risk of developing cancer and can be automatically estimated using deep learning models from digital mammograms. Our aim is to evaluate the capacity and reliability of such models to predict density from low-dose mammograms taken to enable risk estimates for younger women. Approach: We trained deep learning models on standard-dose and simulated low-dose mammograms. The models were then tested on a mammography dataset with paired standard- and low-dose images. The effect of different factors (including age, density, and dose ratio) on the differences between predictions on standard and low doses is analyzed. Methods to improve performance are assessed, and factors that reduce the model quality are demonstrated. Results: We showed that, although many factors have no significant effect on the quality of low-dose density prediction, both density and breast area have an impact. The correlation between density predictions on low- and standard-dose images of breasts with the largest breast area is 0.985 (0.949 to 0.995), whereas that with the smallest is 0.882 (0.697 to 0.961). We also demonstrated that averaging across craniocaudal-mediolateral oblique (CC-MLO) images and across repeatedly trained models can improve predictive performance. Conclusions: Low-dose mammography can be used to produce density and risk estimates that are comparable to standard-dose images. Averaging across CC-MLO and model predictions should improve this performance. The model quality is reduced when making predictions on denser and smaller breasts.
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.