Artificial Intelligence for Assessment of Digital Mammography Positioning Reveals Persistent Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mammographic breast cancer detection depends on high-quality positioning, which is traditionally assessed and monitored subjectively. This study used artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate mammography positioning on digital screening mammograms to identify and quantify unmet mammography positioning quality (MPQ). METHODS: Data were collected within an IRB-approved collaboration. In total, 126 367 digital mammography studies (553 339 images) were processed. Unmet MPQ criteria, including exaggeration, portion cutoff, posterior tissue missing, nipple not in profile, too high on image receptor, inadequate pectoralis length, sagging, and posterior nipple line (PNL) length difference, were evaluated using MPQ AI algorithms. The similarity of unmet MPQ occurrence and rank order was compared for each health system. RESULTS: Altogether, 163 759 and 219 785 unmet MPQ criteria were identified, respectively, at the health systems. The rank order and the probability distribution of the unmet MPQ criteria were not statistically significantly different between health systems (P = .844 and P = .92, respectively). The 3 most-common unmet MPQ criteria were: short PNL length on the craniocaudal (CC) view, inadequate pectoralis muscle, and excessive exaggeration on the CC view. The percentages of unmet positioning criteria out of the total potential unmet positioning criteria at health system 1 and health system 2 were 8.4% (163 759/1 949 922) and 7.3% (219 785/3 030 129), respectively. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence identified a similar distribution of unmet MPQ criteria in 2 health systems' daily work. Knowledge of current commonly unmet MPQ criteria can facilitate the improvement of mammography quality through tailored education strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".