MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117464264 · doi:10.1177/08465371251400538

Semi-Supervised Deep Learning-Based Model for Segmentation of Breast Arterial Calcification on Screening Mammograms

2025· article· en· W7117464264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mu’ath Ibrahim, Patrick Brennan, Mo’ayyad E. Suleiman, Mary Rickard, Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Ziba Gandomkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Future Fund
KeywordsSegmentationMammographyWorkflowCalcificationCalcinosisScreening mammography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Breast arterial calcification (BAC), detectable on routine mammograms, offers a promising independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification. However, current BAC assessment methods lack standardization and rely on subjective interpretations. This study introduces a semi-supervised deep learning (DL) model to automate BAC severity grading, enhance cross-system generalizability, and align with clinical consensus. METHODS: A U-Net-based segmentation model was trained on 2560 annotated screening mammograms from 7 vendors. A semi-supervised learning strategy employing progressive pseudo-labeling incorporated 6000 unlabeled images to enhance model robustness. BAC severity was graded by thresholding the percentage area covered by BAC and benchmarked against radiologists' assessments using Canadian Society of Breast Imaging (CSBI) guidelines. Performance was evaluated using the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient (JSC) for segmentation, along with accuracy, precision, F1-score, and recall. For detecting clinically significant (Grade 3) BAC, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed. Agreement with experts was evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: The proposed model achieved a JSC of 0.614, an accuracy of 0.991, an F1-score of 0.756, a precision of 0.763, and a recall of 0.764. It demonstrated superior segmentation accuracy compared to the baseline U-Net model. Agreement with consensus radiologists was high, with a weighted kappa of 0.90, 95% CI = (0.70, 1.00). For clinically significant (Grade 3) BAC, the model achieved an AUC of 0.87, 95% CI = (0.72, 1.00), sensitivity of 0.80, and specificity of 0.93. CONCLUSION: The framework holds promise for clinical adoption, integrating into mammography workflows and improving women's cardiovascular risk stratification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207