Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40198652›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Subgroup evaluation to understand performance gaps in deep learning-based classification of regions of interest on mammography.

MinJae Woo, Linglin Zhang, Beatrice Brown-Mulry, InChan Hwang, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Aimilia Gastounioti, Imon Banerjee, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Hari Trivedi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors.

MinJae WooDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-2100
Linglin ZhangArtificial Intelligence Ethics Laboratory, Equifax Inc., Alpharetta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0412-0302
Beatrice Brown-MulryDepartment of Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2835-3852
InChan HwangDepartment of Computer Science, Montreat College, Montreat, North Carolina, United States of America.
Judy Wawira GichoyaDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Aimilia GastouniotiComputational Imaging Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3359-7195
Imon BanerjeeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America.
Laleh Seyyed-KalantariDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hari TrivediDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.

Funding

Advancing breast cancer risk assessment with digital breast tomosynthesisR01CA286120 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Aimilia Gastounioti · 2024 to 2026
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA286120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates a deep learning model for classifying normal versus potentially abnormal regions of interest (ROIs) on mammography, aiming to identify imaging, pathologic, and demographic characteristics that may induce suboptimal model performance in certain patient subgroups. We utilized the EMory BrEast imaging Dataset (EMBED), containing 3.4 million mammographic images from 115,931 patients. Full-field digital mammograms from women aged 18 years or older were used to create positive and negative patches with the patches matched based on size, location, patient demographics, and imaging features. Several convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures were tested, with ResNet152V2 demonstrating the best performance. The dataset was split into training (29,144 patches), validation (9,910 patches), and testing (13,390 patches) sets. Performance metrics included accuracy, AUC, recall, precision, F1 score, false negative rate, and false positive rate. Subgroup analysis was conducted using univariate and multivariate regression models to control for confounding effects. The classification model achieved an AUC of 0.975 and a recall of 0.927. False negative predictions were significantly associated with White patients (RR = 1.208; p = 0.050), those never biopsied (RR = 1.079; p = 0.011), and cases with architectural distortion (RR = 1.037; p < 0.001). Higher breast density significantly increased the risk of false positives, with BI-RADS density C (RR = 1.891; p < 0.001) and D (RR = 2.486; p < 0.001). Race and age were not significant predictors for false positives in multivariate analysis. These findings suggest that deep learning models for mammography may underperform in specific subgroups. The study underscores the need for more precise patient subgroup analysis and emphasizes the importance of considering confounding factors in deep learning model evaluations. These insights can help develop fair and interpretable decision-making models in mammography, ultimately enhancing the performance and equity of CADe and CADx applications.

Identifiers

PMID40198652
PMCPMC11978028

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.