Back

Model uncertainty estimates for deep learning mammographic density prediction using ordinal and classification approaches

Squires, S.; Kuling, G.; Evans, D. G.; Martel, A. L.; Astley, S. M.

2024-09-01 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.08.31.24312184 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeMammographic density is associated with the risk of developing breast cancer and can be predicted using deep learning methods. Model uncertainty estimates are not produced by standard regression approaches but would be valuable for clinical and research purposes. Our objective is to produce deep learning models with in-built uncertainty estimates without degrading predictive performance. ApproachWe analyse data from over 150,000 mammogram images with associated continuous density scores from expert readers in the Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study. We re-designate the continuous density scores to 100 density classes then train classification and ordinal deep learning models. Distributions and distribution-free methods are applied to extract predictions and uncertainties. A deep learning regression model is trained on the continuous density scores to act as a direct comparison. ResultsThe root mean squared error (RMSE) between expert assigned density labels and predictions of the standard regression model are 8.42 (8.34-8.51) while the RMSE for the classification and ordinal classification are 8.37 (8.28-8.46) and 8.44 (8.35-8.53) respectively. The average uncertainties produced by the models are higher when the density scores from pairs of expert readers density scores differ more, are higher when different mammogram views of the same views are more variable and when two separately trained models show higher variation. ConclusionsUsing either a classification or ordinal approach we can produce model uncertainty estimates without loss of predictive performance.

Published in Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

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

1
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
9.9%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.0%
5
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.5%
7
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
8
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Expert Systems with Applications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
15
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
16
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.1%
17
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Physics in Medicine & Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
60 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
41 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
23
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Animals
23 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
26
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
27
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
28
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
30
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%