Back

Fourier Analysis of Bilateral Breast Asymmetry for Short-term Breast Cancer Risk Prediction

Heine, J.; Fowler, E.; Egan, K.; Weinfurtner, R. J.; Balagurunathan, Y.; Schabath, M. B.

2026-03-30 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.03.27.26349508 medRxiv
Show abstract

A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that measures from mammograms are predictive of breast cancer risk. In this matched case-control study, mammograms acquired near the time of diagnosis were analyzed to investigate bilateral breast asymmetry as measure of short-term risk prediction. Specifically, contralateral breast images were compared with measures derived in the Fourier domain (FD); this technique summarizes power in concentric radial bands that cover the Fourier plane. Equivalently, this approach can be described as a multiscale characterization of the image. The summarized power difference between respective contralateral bands produces an asymmetry measure. Full field digital mammography (FFDM) and synthetic two-dimensional images from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) were investigated for women that had both types of mammograms acquired at the same time. Odds ratios (ORs) and the area under the receiver operating curves (Azs) were generated from conditional logistic regression modeling with 95% confidence intervals. Raw unprocessed FFDM images produced significant findings: OR = 1.90 (1.58, 2.29) and Az = 1.72 (0.67, 0.76) per one standard deviation unit. Associations were significant but attenuated for both clinical FFDM and DBT images: OR = 1.31 (1.11, 1.54) and Az = 0.63 (0.58, 0.67); and OR = 1.48 (1.25, 1.76) and Az = 0.65 (0.60, 0.70), respectively. Results suggest that clinical FFDM and DBT images are inferior to raw FFDM images in capturing breast asymmetry with information loss for breast cancer risk prediction. Moreover, these DBT images have lower spatial resolution but produced stronger associations than the clinical FFDM images.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
24.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.3%
3
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.7%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
6
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
7
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
9
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
12
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
13
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
24
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%
28
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
30
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%