A comparative study of volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: results from a high-risk population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a study to compare methods for volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammography (DM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for a high-risk population of women. DM and MRI images of the unaffected breast from 32 women with recently detected abnormalities and/or previously diagnosed breast cancer (age range 31-78 yrs, mean 50.3 yrs) were retrospectively analyzed. DM images were analyzed using QuantraTM (Hologic Inc). The MRI images were analyzed using a fuzzy-C-means segmentation algorithm on the T1 map. Both methods were compared to Cumulus (Univ. Toronto). Volumetric breast density estimates from DM and MRI are highly correlated (r=0.90, p≤0.001). The correlation between the volumetric and the area-based density measures is lower and depends on the training background of the Cumulus software user (r=0.73-84, p≤0.001). In terms of absolute values, MRI provides the lowest volumetric estimates (mean=14.63%), followed by the DM volumetric (mean=22.72%) and area-based measures (mean=29.35%). The MRI estimates of the fibroglandular volume are statistically significantly lower than the DM estimates for women with very low-density breasts (p≤0.001). We attribute these differences to potential partial volume effects in MRI and differences in the computational aspects of the image analysis methods in MRI and DM. The good correlation between the volumetric and the area-based measures, shown to correlate with breast cancer risk, suggests that both DM and MRI volumetric breast density measures can aid in breast cancer risk assessment. Further work is underway to fully-investigate the association between volumetric breast density measures and breast cancer risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".