Predicting the onset of breast cancer using mammogram imaging data with irregular boundary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With mammography being the primary breast cancer screening strategy, it is essential to make full use of the mammogram imaging data to better identify women who are at higher and lower than average risk. Our primary goal in this study is to extract mammogram-based features that augment the well-established breast cancer risk factors to improve prediction accuracy. In this article, we propose a supervised functional principal component analysis (sFPCA) over triangulations method for extracting features that are ordered by the magnitude of association with the failure time outcome. The proposed method accommodates the irregular boundary issue posed by the breast area within the mammogram imaging data with flexible bivariate splines over triangulations. We also provide an eigenvalue decomposition algorithm that is computationally efficient. Compared to the conventional unsupervised FPCA method, the proposed method results in a lower Brier Score and higher area under the ROC curve (AUC) in simulation studies. We apply our method to data from the Joanne Knight Breast Health Cohort at Siteman Cancer Center. Our approach not only obtains the best prediction performance comparing to unsupervised FPCA and benchmark models but also reveals important risk patterns within the mammogram images. This demonstrates the importance of utilizing additional supervised image-based features to clarify 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".