Cited by 88AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging

A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening

Liu, Huanhuan, Chen, Yanhong, Zhang, Yuzhen, Wang, Lijun, Luo, Ran, Wu, Haoting, Wu, Chenqing, Zhang, Huiling +3 more·2021·European Radiology

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the value of full-field digital mammography-based deep learning (DL) in predicting malignancy of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 microcalcifications. Methods A total of 384 patients with 414 pathologically confirmed microcalcifications (221 malignant and 193 benign) were randomly allocated into the training, validation, and testing datasets (272/71/71 lesions) in this retrospective study. A combined DL model was developed incorporating mammography and clinical variables. Model performance was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with the clinical model, stand-alone DL image model, and BI-RADS approach. The predictive performance for malignancy was also compared between the combined model and human readers (2 juniors and 2 seniors). Results The combined DL model demonstrated favorable AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.910, 85.3%, and 91.9% in predicting BI-RADS 4 malignant microcalcifications in the testing dataset, which outperformed the clinical model, DL image model, and BI-RADS with AUCs of 0.799, 0.841, and 0.804, respectively. The combined model achieved non-inferior performance as senior radiologists (p = 0.860, p = 0.800) and outperformed junior radiologists (p = 0.155, p = 0.029). The diagnostic performance of two junior radiologists was improved after artificial intelligence assistance with AUCs increased to 0.854 and 0.901 from 0.816 (p = 0.556) and 0.773 (p…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-020-07659-y

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Luo, R., Wu, H., Wu, C., Zhang, H., Tan, W., Yin, H., & Wang, D.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • InferVision (China) (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Dengbin
Venue
European Radiology
Published
2021-01-26
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
5902-5912
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
OpenAlex
W3122649642
Cited by
88
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Shanghai Municipal Commission (No. 2018ZHYL0108)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFC0109003)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81901695)
  • Shanghai Sailing Program (No.19YF1433100)
  • Research Fund of Hospital Project (No. 18YJ16)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Keywords
breast cancer screening, full-field digital mammography, deep learning, malignancy prediction, clinical factors, BI-RADS, radiologist performance, interobserver agreement, computer-aided diagnosis, breast microcalcifications, artificial intelligence in radiology, clinical decision support, junior radiologists, breast cancer risk stratification
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Breast Neoplasms, Calcinosis, Female, Humans, Mammography, Retrospective Studies, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review