↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0022-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aly A. Mohamed, Yahong Luo, Hong Peng, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Shandong Wu

Abstract

Mammographic breast density has been established as an independent risk marker for developing breast cancer. Breast density assessment is a routine clinical need in breast cancer screening and current standard is using the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) criteria including four qualitative categories (i.e., fatty, scattered density, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense). In each mammogram examination, a breast is typically imaged with two different views, i.e., the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view and cranial caudal (CC) view. The BI-RADS-based breast density assessment is a qualitative process made by visual observation of both the MLO and CC views by radiologists, where there is a notable inter- and intra-reader variability. In order to maintain consistency and accuracy in BI-RADS-based breast density assessment, gaining understanding on radiologists' reading behaviors will be educational. In this study, we proposed to leverage the newly emerged deep learning approach to investigate how the MLO and CC view images of a mammogram examination may have been clinically used by radiologists in coming up with a BI-RADS density category. We implemented a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based deep learning model, aimed at distinguishing the breast density categories using a large (15,415 images) set of real-world clinical mammogram images. Our results showed that the classification of density categories (in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) using MLO view images is significantly higher than that using the CC view. This indicates that most likely it is the MLO view that the radiologists have predominately used to determine the breast density BI-RADS categories. Our study holds a potential to further interpret radiologists' reading characteristics, enhance personalized clinical training to radiologists, and ultimately reduce reader variations in breast density assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Master 16 11%
Researcher 10 7%
Lecturer 6 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 54 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Computer Science 19 14%
Engineering 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 59 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#868
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,228
of 318,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.