Use of convolutional neural networks to predict risk of masking by mammographic density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitivity of screening mammography is reduced by increased mammographic density (MD). MD can obscure or “mask” developing lesions making them harder to detect. Predicting masking risk may be an effective tool for a stratified screening program where selected women can receive alternative screening modalities that are less susceptible to masking. Here, we investigate whether the use of artificial intelligence can accurately predict the masking risk and compare its performance to that of conventional BI-RADS density classification. The analysis was based on mammograms of 214 subjects comprised of 147 women with a screen-detected (SD) or “non-masked” cancer and 67 that developed a non-screen detected (NSD) or presumably masked cancer within 2 years following a negative screen. Prior to analysis, mammograms were pre-processed into quantitative MD maps using an in-house algorithm. A transfer learning approach was used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) based on VGG-16 in a seven cross-fold approach to classify masking status. A two-step transfer learning method was also used where the pre-trained CNN was initially trained on 5,865 mammograms to classify by BI-RADS density category and then trained for masking status. Using BI-RADS density as a masking risk predictor has an AUC of 0.64 [0.57 - 0.71 95CI]. The CNN-mask yielded an AUC of 0.76 [0.68 - 0.81]. Combining the CNN-mask with our previous hand-crafted masking risk predictor, the AUC improved to 0.78 [0.70 - 0.83]. The combined AUC improved to 0.81 [0.72-0.90] when analysis was restricted to NSD cancers surfacing clinically within one year after a negative screen. The two-step transfer learning yielded similar performance. This work suggests that a CNN masking risk predictor can be used to guide a stratified screening program to overcome the limitations of screening mammography in dense breasts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".