MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592740045 · doi:10.1117/12.2254320

Automated assessment of breast tissue density in non-contrast 3D CT images without image segmentation based on a deep CNN

2017· article· en· W2592740045 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangrong Zhou, Takuya Kano, Hiromi Koyasu, Shuo Li, Xinxin Zhou, Takeshi Hara, Masayuki Matsuo, Hiroshi Fujita

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBreast tissueConvolutional neural networkBreast densitySegmentationGround truthPattern recognition (psychology)Contrast (vision)Breast imagingDeep learningRobustness (evolution)TomographyMammographyComputer visionBreast cancerRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a novel approach for the automatic assessment of breast density in non-contrast three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) images. The proposed approach trains and uses a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) from scratch to classify breast tissue density directly from CT images without segmenting the anatomical structures, which creates a bottleneck in conventional approaches. Our scheme determines breast density in a 3D breast region by decomposing the 3D region into several radial 2D-sections from the nipple, and measuring the distribution of breast tissue densities on each 2D section from different orientations. The whole scheme is designed as a compact network without the need for post-processing and provides high robustness and computational efficiency in clinical settings. We applied this scheme to a dataset of 463 non-contrast CT scans obtained from 30- to 45-year-old-women in Japan. The density of breast tissue in each CT scan was assigned to one of four categories (glandular tissue within the breast <25%, 25%–50%, 50%–75%, and >75%) by a radiologist as ground truth. We used 405 CT scans for training a deep CNN and the remaining 58 CT scans for testing the performance. The experimental results demonstrated that the findings of the proposed approach and those of the radiologist were the same in 72% of the CT scans among the training samples and 76% among the testing samples. These results demonstrate the potential use of deep CNN for assessing breast tissue density in non-contrast 3D CT images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207