Supervised Two-Dimensional Functional Principal Component Analysis with Time-to-Event Outcomes and Mammogram Imaging Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer early and secondarily measures breast density to classify women at higher or lower than average risk for future breast cancer in the general population. Despite the strong association of individual mammography features to breast cancer risk, the statistical literature on mammogram imaging data is limited. While functional principal component analysis (FPCA) has been studied in the literature for extracting image-based features, it is conducted independently of the time-to-event response variable. With the consideration of building a prognostic model for precision prevention, we present a set of flexible methods, supervised FPCA (sFPCA) and functional partial least squares (FPLS), to extract image-based features associated with the failure time while accommodating the added complication from right censoring. Throughout the article, we hope to demonstrate that one method is favored over the other under different clinical setups. The proposed methods are applied to the motivating data set from the Joanne Knight Breast Health cohort at Siteman Cancer Center. Our approaches not only obtain the best prediction performance compared to the benchmark model, but also reveal different risk patterns within the mammograms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".