mammography AI Archives - Page 2 of 2

Radiology Journal detailed a multimodal AI solution that can classify breast lesion subtypes using mammograms, potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving biopsy interpretations.

Researchers from Israel and IBM/Merative first pretrained a deep learning model with 26k digital mammograms to classify images (malignant, benign, or normal), and used these pretraining weights to develop a lesion subtype classification model trained with mammograms and clinical data. Finally, they trained a pair of lesion classification models using digital mammograms linked to biopsy results from 2,120 women in Israel and 1,642 women in the US.

When the Israel AI model was tested against mammograms from 441 Israeli women it…

Predicted malignancy with an 0.88 AUC
Classified ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive carcinomas, or benign lesions with 0.76, 0.85, and 0.82 AUCs
Correctly interpreted 98.7% of malignant mammographic examinations and 74.6% of invasive carcinomas (matching three radiologists)
Would have prevented 13% of unnecessary biopsies and missed 1.3% of malignancies (at 99% sensitivity)

When the US AI model was tested against mammograms from 344 US women it…

Predicted malignancy with a lower 0.80 AUC
Classified ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive carcinomas, or benign lesions with lower 0.74, 0.83, and 0.72 AUCs
Correctly interpreted 96.8% of malignant mammographic examinations and 63% of invasive carcinomas (matching three radiologists)

The authors attributed the US model’s lower accuracy to its smaller training dataset, and noted that the two models’ also had worse performance when tested against data from the other country (US model w/Israel data, Israel model w/ US data) or when classifying rare lesion types.

However, they were still bullish about this approach with enough training data, and noted the future potential to add other imaging modalities and genetic information to further enhance multimodal breast cancer assessments.

The Takeaway

We’ve historically relied on biopsy results to classify breast lesion subtypes, and that will remain true for quite a while. However, this study shows that multimodal-trained AI can extract far more information from mammograms, while potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving the accuracy of the biopsies that are performed.

A recent mammography AI study review quickly evolved from a “study” to a “story” after a single tweet from Eric Topol (to his 521k followers), calling mammography AI’s accuracy “very disappointing” and prompting a new flow of online conversations about how far imaging AI is from achieving its promise. However, the bigger “story” here might actually be how much AI research needs to evolve.

The Study Review: A team of UK-based researchers reviewed 12 digital mammography screening AI studies (n = 131,822 women). The studies analyzed DM screening AI’s performance when used as a standalone system (5 studies), as a reader aid (3 studies), or for triage (4 studies).

The AI Assessment: The biggest public takeaway was that 34 of the 36 AI systems (94%) evaluated in three of the studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than the consensus of two or more radiologists. They also found that AI modestly improved radiologist accuracy when used as a reader aid and eliminated around half of negative screenings when used for triage (but also missed some cancers).

The AI Research Assessment: Each of the reviewed studies were “of poor methodological quality,” all were retrospective, and most studies had high risks of bias and high applicability concerns. Unsurprisingly, these methodology-focused assessments didn’t get much public attention.

The Two Takeaways: The authors correctly concluded that these 12 poor-quality studies found DM screening AI to be inaccurate, and called for better quality research so we can properly judge DM screening AI’s actual accuracy and most effective use cases (and then improve it). However, the takeaway for many folks was that mammography screening AI is worse than radiologists and shouldn’t replace them, which might be true, but isn’t very scientifically helpful.

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.