Back

Evaluating Deep-Learning Based Quantification of Breast Arterial Calcification on Mammography for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment

Singh, P.; Platt, S.; Bussey, O.; Heacock, L.; Verdone, A.; Chen, W.; Reynolds, H. R.; Yu, C.; Shen, Y.; Bredella, M. A.

2026-06-18 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.06.16.26355800 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: To develop and evaluate a deep learning model for automated quantification of breast arterial calcification (BAC) on screening mammography and to assess whether AI-derived BAC burden predicts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women. Methods: In this retrospective study, 202,006 women who underwent screening mammography without history of MACE were included. A BAC segmentation model was trained on an expert-annotated dataset using a multi-task U-Net with a ResNet-18 encoder to detect and segment BAC. BAC burden was quantified as area (mm{superscript 2}) from model-generated masks using DICOM pixel spacing and categorized by tertiles into low, intermediate, and high. The PREVENT score and incident MACE were identified from electronic health records. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to evaluate AI-derived BAC burden and PREVENT score alone, and combined models for 5 - and 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction. Results: Among 202,006 women (mean age 54.8{+/-}11.7 years), 23.1% had AI-detected BAC, and 7,701 (3.8%) developed incident MACE during a median follow - up of 7.5 years. On the geographically held-out test set, the BAC model achieved an AUROC of 0.97, Dice score of 0.6678, and Pearson correlation of 0.961 between AI-derived and manually annotated BAC burden. BAC burden increased with age and was higher among women who developed MACE. Five - year MACE incidence increased across BAC categories from 1.5% in women without BAC to 6.9% in those with high BAC burden. BAC burden alone showed modest prediction of MACE, with 5-year and 10-year AUROCs of 0.661 and 0.650, respectively, while PREVENT achieved AUROCs of 0.781 and 0.771. Adding BAC to PREVENT produced minimal improvement in discrimination. Conclusion: Deep learning-based BAC quantification from routine mammography is feasible, accurate, and associated with future cardiovascular risk. Although BAC added little to PREVENT for overall discrimination, it may serve as a scalable opportunistic imaging biomarker to identify women at elevated cardiovascular risk and support preventive care.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
9.8%
3
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.5%
4
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.9%
5
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
6
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.3%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.3%
8
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
9
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
11
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
12
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
15
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
16
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.3%
19
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
22
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
24
Photoacoustics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
25
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
26
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.0%
27
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Endocrinology
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 41%
0.8%