Comparison of breast percent density estimation from raw versus processed digital mammograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compared breast percent density (PD%) measures obtained from raw and post-processed digital mammographic (DM) images. Bilateral raw and post-processed medio-lateral oblique (MLO) images from 81 screening studies were retrospectively analyzed. Image acquisition was performed w ith a GE Healthcare DS full-field DM system. Image post-processing was performed using the PremiumView TM algorithm (GE Healthcare). Area-b ased breast PD% was estimated by a radiologist using a semi-automated image thresholding technique ( Cumulus, Univ. Toronto ). Comparison of breast PD% between raw and post-processed DM images was performed using the Pearson correlation (r), linear regression, and Students t-test. Intra-reader variability was assessed with a repeat read on the same data-set. Our results show that breast PD% measurements from ra w and post-processed DM images have a high correlation ( r=0.98, R 2 =0.95, p<0.001). Paired t-test comparison of breast PD% between the raw and the post-processe d images showed a statistically significant difference equal to 1.2% (p = 0.006). Our results suggest that the relatively small magnitude of the absolute difference in PD% between raw and post-processed DM images is unlikely to be clinically significant in breast cancer risk stratification. Therefore, it may be feasible to use post-processed DM images for breast PD% estimation in clinical settings. Since most breast imaging clinics routinely use and store only the post-processed DM images, breast PD% estimation from post-processed data may accelerate the integration of breast density in breast cancer risk assessment models used in clinical practice. Key Words: Digital mammography (DM), breast percent density (PD%), breast cancer risk estimation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".