Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset
November 13, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· π European Radiology
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Daniela Sacchetto, Lia Morra, Silvano Agliozzo, Daniela Bernardi, Tomas Bjorklund, Beniamino Brancato, Patrizia Bravetti, Luca A. Carbonaro, Loredana Correale, Carmen FantΓ², Elisabetta Favettini, Laura Martincich, Luisella Milanesio, Sara Mombelloni, Francesco Monetti, Doralba Morrone, Marco Pellegrini, Barbara Pesce, Antonella Petrillo, Gianni Saguatti, Carmen Stevanin, Rubina M. Trimboli, Paola Tuttobene, Marvi Valentini, Vincenzo Marra, Alfonso Frigerio, Alberto Bert, Francesco Sardanelli
arXiv ID
1811.05324
Category
physics.med-ph
Cross-listed
cs.CV
Citations
17
Venue
European Radiology
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Objectives: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. Methods: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from 9 centers and 6 different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. Panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (k) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. Results: While the agreement of individual radiologists with PMR ranged from k=0.483 to k=0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92%). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (k=0.620, standard deviation [SD]=0.140), individual versus PMR (k=0.736, SD=0.117), and individual versus ABDE (k=0.674, SD=0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (k=0.831). Conclusions: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β physics.med-ph
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Gibbs-Ringing Artifact Removal Based on Local Subvoxel-shifts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning-enabled Virtual Histological Staining of Biological Samples
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Eigenspectra optoacoustic tomography achieves quantitative blood oxygenation imaging deep in tissues
π
π
The Cartographer
Deep learning for biomedical photoacoustic imaging: A review
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The reliability of a deep learning model in clinical out-of-distribution MRI data: a multicohort study
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Neural Architecture Search with Reinforcement Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted