Comparison of Mammography Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for 5-year Breast Cancer Risk Prediction
arasu, v. a.; habel, l. a.; achacoso, n. s.; buist, d. s.; cord, j. b.; esserman, l. J.; hylton, n. m.; Glymour, M. M. M.; kornak, j.; kushi, l. h.; lewis, d. a.; liu, v. x.; miglioretti, d. l.; navarro, d. a.; sieh, w.; shen, l.; sofyrgin, o.; Yoon, H.-C.; Lee, c.
Show abstract
PURPOSETo examine the ability of 5 artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer vision algorithms, most trained to detect visible breast cancer on mammograms, to predict future risk relative to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium clinical risk prediction model (BCSC v2). PATIENTS AND METHODSIn this case-cohort study, women who had a screening mammogram in 2016 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California with no evidence of cancer on final imaging assessment were followed through September 2021. Women with prior breast cancer or a known highly penetrant gene mutation were excluded. From the 329,814 total eligible women, a random subcohort of 13,881 women (4.2%) were selected, of whom 197 had incident cancer. All 4,475 additional incident cancers were also included. Continuous AI-predicted scores were generated from the index 2016 mammogram. Risk estimates were generated with the Kaplan-Meier method and time-varying area under the curve [AUC(t)]. RESULTSFor incident cancers at 0-1 year (interval cancer risk), BCSC demonstrated an AUC(t) of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.58-0.66), and the AI algorithms had AUC(t)s ranging from 0.66-0.71, all significantly higher than BCSC (P < .05). For incident cancers at 1 to 5 years (5-year future cancer risk), BCSC demonstrated an AUC(t) of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.62), and the AI algorithms had AUC(t)s ranging from 0.63 to 0.67, all significantly higher than BCSC. Combined BCSC and AI models demonstrated AUC(t)s for interval cancer risk of 0.67-0.73 and for 5-year future cancer risk of 0.66-0.68. CONCLUSIONThe AI mammography algorithms we evaluated had significantly higher discrimination than the BCSC clinical risk model for interval and 5-year future cancer risk. Combined AI and BCSC models had slightly higher discrimination than AI alone.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model including the benefits and harms of radiotherapy 95%
- Investigating the relationship between breast cancer risk factors and an AI-generated mammographic texture feature in the Nurses' Health Study II 94%
- RNA Sequencing-Based Single Sample Predictors of Molecular Subtype and Risk of Recurrence for Clinical Assessment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Novel mammogram-based measures improve breast cancer risk prediction beyond an established mammographic density measure 95%
- Prelude to Malignancy: A Gene Expression Signature in Normal Mammary Gland from Breast Cancer Patients Suggests Pre-tumorous Alterations and Is Associated with Adverse Outcomes 92%
- Reproductive Factors and Risk of Breast Cancer by Tumor Subtypes among Ghanaian Women: A Population-based Case-control Study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Incorporating Polygenic Risk Scores and Nongenetic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction among Asian Women, Results from Asia Breast Cancer Consortium 96%
- Missing data in the medical record for oncology patients: prevalence and association with outcomes 89%
- Use of Skin Cancer Procedures, Medicare Reimbursement, and Overall Expenditures, 2012-2017 87%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of testosterone therapy on breast tissue composition and mammographic breast density in trans masculine individuals 95%
- Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature 95%
- A genome-wide association study of mammographic texture variation 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.