Cited by 423AI in cancer detectionDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Robust breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using an annotation-efficient deep learning approach

Open access
Lotter, William, Diab, Abdul Rahman, Haslam, Bryan, Kim, Jiye G., Grisot, Giorgia, Wu, Eric, Wu, Kevin, Onieva, Jorge Onieva +6 more·2021·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Breast cancer remains a global challenge, causing over 600,000 deaths in 2018 (ref. 1). To achieve earlier cancer detection, health organizations worldwide recommend screening mammography, which is estimated to decrease breast cancer mortality by 20-40% (refs. 2,3). Despite the clear value of screening mammography, significant false positive and false negative rates along with non-uniformities in expert reader availability leave opportunities for improving quality and access 4,5. To address these limitations, there has been much recent interest in applying deep learning to mammography 6-18, and these efforts have highlighted two key difficulties: obtaining large amounts of annotated training data and ensuring generalization across populations, acquisition equipment and modalities. Here we present an annotation-efficient deep learning approach that (1) achieves state-of-the-art performance in mammogram classification, (2) successfully extends to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; '3D mammography'), (3) detects cancers in clinically negative prior mammograms of patients with cancer, (4) generalizes well to a population with low screening rates and (5) outperforms five out of five full-time breast-imaging specialists with an average increase in sensitivity of 14%. By creating new 'maximum suspicion projection' (MSP) images from DBT data, our progressively trained, multiple-instance learning approach effectively trains on DBT exams using only breast-level labels while maintaining localization-based interpretability. Altogether, our results demonstrate promise towards software that can improve the accuracy of and access to screening mammography worldwide.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-020-01174-9

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A subsequent study reported an AI approach covering 2D and 3D mammography that detected breast cancer 1 to 2 years earlier than standard radiographic review in some cases.

    “A subsequent study presented an AI approach that encompasses both 2D and 3D mammography, with evidence of detecting breast cancer 1 to 2 years earlier than standard radiographic review for some cases (10).”
  • There are efforts to generate more diverse public datasets, such as EMBED, and instances where AI performance has generalized well across different patient populations.

    “Conversely, there are efforts to generate more diverse public data sets, such as EMBED (180), and instances where AI performance has generalized well across different patient populations (9,10,12).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Sickles E, D’Orsi C, and Bassett L ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th Edition, (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lotter, W., Diab, A. R., Haslam, B., Kim, J. G., Grisot, G., Wu, E., Wu, K., Onieva, J. O., Boyer, Y., Boxerman, J. L., Wang, M., Bandler, M., Vijayaraghavan, G. R., & Gregory Sorensen, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Henan Provincial People's Hospital (CN)
  • Medford Radiology Group (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
Lotter, William
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2021-01-11
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
244-249
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2994949497
Cited by
423
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 1
FWCI
24.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (1R44CA240022, 1R37CA240403-01A1)
  • National Science Foundation (1938387)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
breast cancer detection, mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, annotation efficiency, multiple instance learning, interpretability, mammography screening, computer-aided detection
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Middle Aged, 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