Validation of a method for measuring the volumetric breast density from digital mammograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of an algorithm used to measure the volumetric breast density (VBD) from digital mammograms. The algorithm is based on the calibration of the detector signal versus the thickness and composition of breast-equivalent phantoms. The baseline error in the density from the algorithm was found to be 1.25 +/- 2.3% VBD units (PVBD) when tested against a set of calibration phantoms, of thicknesses 3-8 cm, with compositions equivalent to fibroglandular content (breast density) between 0% and 100% and under x-ray beams between 26 kVp and 32 kVp with a Rh/Rh anode/filter. The algorithm was also tested against images from a dedicated breast computed tomography (CT) scanner acquired on 26 volunteers. The CT images were segmented into regions representing adipose, fibroglandular and skin tissues, and then deformed using a finite-element algorithm to simulate the effects of compression in mammography. The mean volume, VBD and thickness of the compressed breast for these deformed images were respectively 558 cm(3), 23.6% and 62 mm. The displaced CT images were then used to generate simulated digital mammograms, considering the effects of the polychromatic x-ray spectrum, the primary and scattered energy transmitted through the breast, the anti-scatter grid and the detector efficiency. The simulated mammograms were analyzed with the VBD algorithm and compared with the deformed CT volumes. With the Rh/Rh anode filter, the root mean square difference between the VBD from CT and from the algorithm was 2.6 PVBD, and a linear regression between the two gave a slope of 0.992 with an intercept of -1.4 PVBD and a correlation with R(2) = 0.963. The results with the Mo/Mo and Mo/Rh anode/filter were similar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".