Recovering unprocessed digital mammograms from processed mammograms for quantitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many mammography facilities only the processed mammograms are preserved to reduce the space requirement and cost of digital archiving. The original unprocessed “raw” mammograms are preferred for quantitative analysis, since they more faithfully represent the x-ray transmission pattern and thus the breast composition. We present the results of a machine learning algorithm that attempts to restore a raw mammogram from its processed version. In this study, 2776 paired sets of the two image types were obtained, corresponding to 635 patients. The machine learning model used was based on a U-Net with attention gates on the long skip connections. A two-pass learning approach was used. The first pass used a mean-squared error loss function with focus on the periphery of the breast, with 5 epochs and a learning rate of 10-5 to settle the network weights quickly. In a second pass, a perceptual loss function, based on features extracted from a pretrained VGG16 neural net, was used with 15 epochs and a 10-6 learning rate. When tested on central ROIs, the mean relative absolute difference (MRAD) and structural similarity index (SSIM) between the original and restored raw images were 0.04 and 0.98, respectively. On the complete (but downsampled) images, MRAD and SSIM were 0.10 and 0.99, respectively. Lesion detectability and cancer masking potential were also measured on the original and restored raw images, showing Pearson correlations of 0.89 in both cases. The algorithm shows potential for using the restored raw images from processed images for the purposes of quantitative analysis. Future work will extend the approach to higher resolution images to preserve detail and more efficient network architectures to reduce memory requirements.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".