Utilization of Texture Analysis in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: Comparison of Grayscale Ultrasound, Shear Wave Elastography, and Radiomic Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which qualitative and quantitative US features are independently associated with malignancy, including those derived from grayscale imaging morphology, shear wave elastography (SWE), and texture analysis. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study was approved by the institutional research ethics board. Consecutive breast US studies performed between January and December 2020 were included. Images were acquired using a Canon Aplio i800 US unit (Canon Medical Systems, Inc., CA) and i18LX5 wideband linear matrix transducer. Grayscale US features, SWE mean, and median elasticity were obtained. Single representative grayscale images were analyzed using dedicated software (LIFEx, version 6.30). First-order and gray-level co-occurrence matrix second-order texture features were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of malignancy (STATA v16.1). RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven cases with complete SWE data were selected for analysis (mean age 54.3, range 21-92). The following variables were found to be independently associated with malignancy: age (P <.001), family history (P = .013), irregular mass shape (P = .024), and stiffness on SWE (mean SWE ≥40 kPa; P <.001). Remaining variables (including texture features) were not found to be independently associated with malignancy (P >.05). CONCLUSION: US texture analysis features were not associated with malignancy independent of other qualitative and quantitative US characteristics currently utilized in clinical practice. This suggests texture analysis may not be warranted when differentiating benign and malignant breast masses on US. In contrast, irregular mass shape on grayscale imaging and increased stiffness on SWE were found to be independent predictors of malignancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".