MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401369518 · doi:10.2196/58776

A Deep Learning Model to Predict Breast Implant Texture Types Using Ultrasonography Images: Feasibility Development Study

2024· article· en· W4401369518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ho Heon Kim, Won Chan Jeong, Kyungran Pi, Angela Soeun Lee, Min Soo Kim, Hye Jin Kim, Jae Hong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelArtificial intelligenceBreast augmentationMedicineReceiver operating characteristicComputer scienceBreast implantTexture (cosmology)Precision and recallImplantPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionSurgeryImage (mathematics)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast implants, including textured variants, have been widely used in aesthetic and reconstructive mammoplasty. However, the textured type, which is one of the shell texture types of breast implants, has been identified as a possible etiologic factor for lymphoma, specifically breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Identifying the shell texture type of the implant is critical to diagnosing BIA-ALCL. However, distinguishing the shell texture type can be difficult due to the loss of human memory and medical history. An alternative approach is to use ultrasonography, but this method also has limitations in quantitative assessment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the feasibility of using a deep learning model to classify the shell texture type of breast implants and make robust predictions from ultrasonography images from heterogeneous sources. METHODS: A total of 19,502 breast implant images were retrospectively collected from heterogeneous sources, including images captured from both Canon and GE devices, images of ruptured implants, and images without implants, as well as publicly available images. The Canon images were trained using ResNet-50. The model's performance on the Canon dataset was evaluated using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Additionally, external validation was conducted using the GE and publicly available datasets. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (PRAUC) were calculated based on the contribution of the pixels with Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM). To identify the significant pixels for classification, we masked the pixels that contributed less than 10%, up to a maximum of 100%. To assess the model's robustness to uncertainty, Shannon entropy was calculated for 4 image groups: Canon, GE, ruptured implants, and without implants. RESULTS: The deep learning model achieved an average AUROC of 0.98 and a PRAUC of 0.88 in the Canon dataset. The model achieved an AUROC of 0.985 and a PRAUC of 0.748 for images captured with GE devices. Additionally, the model predicted an AUROC of 0.909 and a PRAUC of 0.958 for the publicly available dataset. This model maintained the PRAUC values for quantitative validation when masking up to 90% of the least-contributing pixels and the remnant pixels in breast shell layers. Furthermore, the prediction uncertainty increased in the following order: Canon (0.066), GE (0072), ruptured implants (0.371), and no implants (0.777). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of using deep learning to predict the shell texture type of breast implants. This approach quantifies the shell texture types of breast implants, supporting the first step in the diagnosis of BIA-ALCL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207