A Deep Learning Model to Predict Breast Implant Texture Types Using Ultrasonography Images: Feasibility Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".