Dataset Information

Evaluation of deep learning-based artificial intelligence techniques for breast cancer detection on mammograms: Results from a retrospective study using a BreastScreen Victoria dataset.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study aims to evaluate deep learning (DL)-based artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for detecting the presence of breast cancer on a digital mammogram image.

Methods

We evaluated several DL-based AI techniques that employ different approaches and backbone DL models and tested the effect on performance of using different data-processing strategies on a set of digital mammographic images with annotations of pathologically proven breast cancer.

Results

Our evaluation uses the area under curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) for performance measurement. The best evaluation result, based on 349 test cases (930 test images), was an AUC of 0.8979 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.873, 0.923] and ACC of 0.8178 [95% CI 0.785, 0.850]. This was achieved by an AI technique that utilises a certain family of DL models, namely ResNet, as its backbone, combines the global features extracted from the whole mammogram and the local features extracted from the automatically detected cancer and non-cancer local regions in the whole image, and leverages background cropping and text removal, contrast adjustment and more training data.

Conclusion

DL-based AI techniques have shown promising results in retrospective studies for many medical image analysis applications. Our study demonstrates a significant opportunity to boost the performance of such techniques applied to breast cancer detection by exploring different types of approaches, backbone DL models and data-processing strategies. The promising results we have obtained suggest further development of AI reading services could transform breast cancer screening in the future.

SUBMITTER: Frazer HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8456839 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare results of selected performance measures in mammographic screening for an artificial intelligence (AI) system versus independent double reading by radiologists.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 949 screen-detected breast cancers, 305 interval cancers, and 13,646 negative examinations performed in BreastScreen Norway during the period from 2010 to 2018. An AI system scored the examinations from 1 to 10, based on the risk of malignancy. Results from the AI system were compared to screening results after independent double reading. AI score 10 was set as the threshold. The results were stratified by mammographic density.ResultsA total of 92.7% of the screen-detected and 40.0% of the interval cancers had an AI score of 10. Among women with a negative screening outcome, 9.1% had an AI score of 10. For women with the highest breast density, the AI system scored 100% of the screen-detected cancers and 48.6% of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10, which resulted in a sensitivity of 80.9% for women with the highest breast density for the AI system, compared to 62.8% for independent double reading. For women with screen-detected cancers who had prior mammograms available, 41.9% had an AI score of 10 at the prior screening round.ConclusionsThe high proportion of cancers with an AI score of 10 indicates a promising performance of the AI system, particularly for women with dense breasts. Results on prior mammograms with AI score 10 illustrate the potential for earlier detection of breast cancers by using AI in screen-reading.Key points• The AI system scored 93% of the screen-detected cancers and 40% of the interval cancers with AI score 10. • The AI system scored all screen-detected cancers and almost 50% of interval cancers among women with the highest breast density with AI score 10. • About 40% of the screen-detected cancers had an AI score of 10 on the prior mammograms, indicating a potential for earlier detection by using AI in screen-reading.

Project description:ImportanceMammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms.Design, setting, and participantsIn this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016.Main outcomes and measurementsAlgorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated.ResultsOverall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity.Conclusions and relevanceWhile no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.

Project description:ImportanceA computer algorithm that performs at or above the level of radiologists in mammography screening assessment could improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.ObjectiveTo perform an external evaluation of 3 commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection algorithms as independent mammography readers and to assess the screening performance when combined with radiologists.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective case-control study was based on a double-reader population-based mammography screening cohort of women screened at an academic hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2008 to 2015. The study included 8805 women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent mammography screening and who did not have implants or prior breast cancer. The study sample included 739 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer (positive) and a random sample of 8066 healthy controls (negative for breast cancer).Main outcomes and measuresPositive follow-up findings were determined by pathology-verified diagnosis at screening or within 12 months thereafter. Negative follow-up findings were determined by a 2-year cancer-free follow-up. Three AI computer-aided detection algorithms (AI-1, AI-2, and AI-3), sourced from different vendors, yielded a continuous score for the suspicion of cancer in each mammography examination. For a decision of normal or abnormal, the cut point was defined by the mean specificity of the first-reader radiologists (96.6%).ResultsThe median age of study participants was 60 years (interquartile range, 50-66 years) for 739 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 years (interquartile range, 47-63 years) for 8066 healthy controls. The cases positive for cancer comprised 618 (84%) screen detected and 121 (16%) clinically detected within 12 months of the screening examination. The area under the receiver operating curve for cancer detection was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.948-0.965) for AI-1, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.910-0.934) for AI-2, and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.909-0.931) for AI-3. At the specificity of the radiologists, the sensitivities were 81.9% for AI-1, 67.0% for AI-2, 67.4% for AI-3, 77.4% for first-reader radiologist, and 80.1% for second-reader radiologist. Combining AI-1 with first-reader radiologists achieved 88.6% sensitivity at 93.0% specificity (abnormal defined by either of the 2 making an abnormal assessment). No other examined combination of AI algorithms and radiologists surpassed this sensitivity level.Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this study is the first independent evaluation of several AI computer-aided detection algorithms for screening mammography. The results of this study indicated that a commercially available AI computer-aided detection algorithm can assess screening mammograms with a sufficient diagnostic performance to be further evaluated as an independent reader in prospective clinical trials. Combining the first readers with the best algorithm identified more cases positive for cancer than combining the first readers with second readers.

Project description:Debilitating hearing loss (HL) affects ~6% of the human population. Only 20% of the people in need of a hearing assistive device will eventually seek and acquire one. The number of people that are satisfied with their Hearing Aids (HAids) and continue using them in the long term is even lower. Understanding the personal, behavioral, environmental, or other factors that correlate with the optimal HAid fitting and with users' experience of HAids is a significant step in improving patient satisfaction and quality of life, while reducing societal and financial burden. In SMART BEAR we are addressing this need by making use of the capacity of modern HAids to provide dynamic logging of their operation and by combining this information with a big amount of information about the medical, environmental, and social context of each HAid user. We are studying hearing rehabilitation through a 12-month continuous monitoring of HL patients, collecting data, such as participants' demographics, audiometric and medical data, their cognitive and mental status, their habits, and preferences, through a set of medical devices and wearables, as well as through face-to-face and remote clinical assessments and fitting/fine-tuning sessions. Descriptive, AI-based analysis and assessment of the relationships between heterogeneous data and HL-related parameters will help clinical researchers to better understand the overall health profiles of HL patients, and to identify patterns or relations that may be proven essential for future clinical trials. In addition, the future state and behavioral (e.g., HAids Satisfiability and HAids usage) of the patients will be predicted with time-dependent machine learning models to assist the clinical researchers to decide on the nature of the interventions. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques will be leveraged to better understand the factors that play a significant role in the success of a hearing rehabilitation program, constructing patient profiles. This paper is a conceptual one aiming to describe the upcoming data collection process and proposed framework for providing a comprehensive profile for patients with HL in the context of EU-funded SMART BEAR project. Such patient profiles can be invaluable in HL treatment as they can help to identify the characteristics making patients more prone to drop out and stop using their HAids, using their HAids sufficiently long during the day, and being more satisfied by their HAids experience. They can also help decrease the number of needed remote sessions with their Audiologist for counseling, and/or HAids fine tuning, or the number of manual changes of HAids program (as indication of poor sound quality and bad adaptation of HAids configuration to patients' real needs and daily challenges), leading to reduced healthcare cost.