Back

AutoCumulus: an Automated Mammographic Density Measure Created Using Artificial Intelligence

Al-qershi, O.; Nguyen, T. L.; Elliott, M. E.; Schmidt, D. F.; Makalic, E.; Li, S.; Fox, S. K.; Dowty, J.; Pena-Solorzano, C. A.; Kwok, C. F.; Chen, Y.; Wang, C.; Lippey, J.; Brotchie, P.; Carneiro, G.; McCarthy, D. J.; Jeong, Y.; Sung, J.; Frazer, H. M.; Hopper, J. L.

2024-02-03 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.02.01.24302158 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMammographic (or breast) density is an established risk factor for breast cancer. There are a variety of approaches to measurement including quantitative, semi-automated and automated approaches. We present a new automated measure, AutoCumulus, learnt from applying deep learning to semi-automated measures. MethodsWe used mammograms of 9,057 population-screened women in the BRAIx study for which semi-automated measurements of mammographic density had been made by experienced readers using the CUMULUS software. The dataset was split into training, testing, and validation sets (80%, 10%, 10%, respectively). We applied a deep learning regression model (fine-tuned ConvNeXtSmall) to estimate percentage density and assessed performance by the correlation between estimated and measured percent density and a Bland-Altman plot. The automated measure was tested on an independent CSAW-CC dataset in which density had been measured using the LIBRA software, comparing measures for left and right breasts, sensitivity for high sensitivity, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs). ResultsBased on the testing dataset, the correlation in percent density between the automated and human measures was 0.95, and the differences were only slightly larger for women with higher density. Based on the CSAW-CC dataset, AltoCumulus outperformed LIBRA in correlation between left and right breast (0.95 versus 0.79; P<0.001), specificity for 95% sensitivity (13% versus 10% (P<0.001)), and AUC (0.638 cf. 0.597; P<0.001). ConclusionWe have created an automated measure of mammographic density that is accurate and gives superior performance on repeatability within a woman, and for prediction of interval cancers, than another well-established automated measure.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.6%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.3%
4
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.1%
7
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
18
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
20
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
26
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
28
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%
30
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%