Estimation of volumetric breast density for breast cancer risk prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammographic density (MD) has been shown to be a strong risk predictor for breast cancer. Compared to subjective assessment by a radiologist, computer-aided analysis of digitized mammograms provides a quantitative and more reproducible method for assessing breast density. However, the current methods of estimating breast density based on the area of bright signal in a mammogram do not reflect the true, volumetric quantity of dense tissue in the breast. A computerized method to estimate the amount of radiographically dense tissue in the overall volume of the breast has been developed to provide an automatic, user-independent tool for breast cancer risk assessment. The procedure for volumetric density estimation consists of first correcting the image for inhomogeneity, then performing a volume density calculation. First, optical sensitometry is used to convert all images to the logarithm of relative exposure (LRE), in order to simplify the image correction operations. The field non-uniformity correction, which takes into account heel effect, inverse square law, path obliquity and intrinsic field and grid non- uniformity is obtained by imaging a spherical section PMMA phantom. The processed LRE image of the phantom is then used as a correction offset for actual mammograms. From information about the thickness and placement of the breast, as well as the parameters of a breast-like calibration step wedge placed in the mammogram, MD of the breast is calculated. Post processing and a simple calibration phantom enable user- independent, reliable and repeatable volumetric estimation of density in breast-equivalent phantoms. Initial results obtained on known density phantoms show the estimation to vary less than 5% in MD from the actual value. This can be compared to estimated mammographic density differences of 30% between the true and non-corrected values. Since a more simplistic breast density measurement based on the projected area has been shown to be a strong indicator of breast cancer risk (RR equals 4), it is believed that the current volumetric technique will provide an even better indicator. Such an indicator can be used in determination of the method and frequency of breast cancer screening, and might prove useful in measuring the effect of intervention measures such as drug therapy or dietary change on 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".