arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2305.04422eess.IVcs.CVcs.CYcs.LG
收藏

乳腺癌筛查X光摄影中人工智能模型性能差异的多变量分析

Multivariate Analysis on Performance Gaps of Artificial Intelligence Models in Screening Mammography

Kennesaw State University(肯尼索州立大学);Emory University(埃默里大学);Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine(圣路易斯华盛顿大学医学院);Mayo Clinic Arizona(梅奥诊所亚利桑那分院);Arizona State University(亚利桑那州立大学);York University(约克大学)

Linglin Zhang, Beatrice Brown-Mulry, Vineela Nalla, InChan Hwang, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Aimilia Gastounioti, Imon Banerjee, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, MinJae Woo, Hari Trivedi

AI总结:

本研究利用EMBED数据集训练深度学习模型进行乳腺X光异常分类,通过多变量逻辑回归控制混杂因素,揭示了年龄、种族、病理及影像特征等亚组变量与模型假阴性和假阳性风险的真实关联,为未来乳腺癌检测模型的开发提供了指导。

摘要:

尽管用于异常分类的深度学习模型在乳腺筛查X光摄影中表现良好,但与模型失败风险增加相关的人口统计学、影像学和临床特征仍不清楚。这项回顾性研究使用了Emory乳腺影像数据集(EMBED),该数据集包含2013年至2020年间在Emory Healthcare接受影像检查的115931名患者的乳腺X光片,以及BI-RADS评估、异常感兴趣区域坐标、影像特征、病理结果和患者人口统计数据。研究训练了多个深度学习模型,以区分筛查乳腺X光片中的异常组织块和随机选取的正常组织块。我们按年龄、种族、病理结果、组织密度和影像特征定义的亚组评估了模型性能,并调查了它们与假阴性(FN)和假阳性(FP)的关联。我们还进行了多变量逻辑回归以控制亚组间的混杂因素。表现最佳的模型ResNet152V2达到了92.6%的准确率(95%CI=92.0-93.2%)和0.975的AUC(95%CI=0.972-0.978)。在控制混杂因素之前,几乎所有亚组在模型性能上都显示出统计学上的显著差异。然而,在控制混杂因素后,我们发现较低的FN风险与其他种族(RR=0.828;p=.050)、活检证实的良性病变(RR=0.927;p=.011)以及肿块(RR=0.921;p=.010)或不对称(RR=0.854;p=.040)相关;较高的FN风险与结构扭曲(RR=1.037;p<.001)相关。较高的FP风险与BI-RADS密度C(RR=1.891;p<.001)和D(RR=2.486;p<.001)相关。我们的结果表明,亚组分析在乳腺X光分类器性能评估中很重要,控制亚组间的混杂因素能阐明变量与模型失败之间的真实关联。这些结果有助于指导未来乳腺癌检测模型的开发。

英文摘要:

Although deep learning models for abnormality classification can perform well in screening mammography, the demographic, imaging, and clinical characteristics associated with increased risk of model failure remain unclear. This retrospective study uses the Emory BrEast Imaging Dataset(EMBED) containing mammograms from 115931 patients imaged at Emory Healthcare between 2013-2020, with BI-RADS assessment, region of interest coordinates for abnormalities, imaging features, pathologic outcomes, and patient demographics. Multiple deep learning models were trained to distinguish between abnormal tissue patches and randomly selected normal tissue patches from screening mammograms. We assessed model performance by subgroups defined by age, race, pathologic outcome, tissue density, and imaging characteristics and investigated their associations with false negatives (FN) and false positives (FP). We also performed multivariate logistic regression to control for confounding between subgroups. The top-performing model, ResNet152V2, achieved accuracy of 92.6%(95%CI=92.0-93.2%), and AUC 0.975(95%CI=0.972-0.978). Before controlling for confounding, nearly all subgroups showed statistically significant differences in model performance. However, after controlling for confounding, we found lower FN risk associates with Other race(RR=0.828;p=.050), biopsy-proven benign lesions(RR=0.927;p=.011), and mass(RR=0.921;p=.010) or asymmetry(RR=0.854;p=.040); higher FN risk associates with architectural distortion (RR=1.037;p<.001). Higher FP risk associates to BI-RADS density C(RR=1.891;p<.001) and D(RR=2.486;p<.001). Our results demonstrate subgroup analysis is important in mammogram classifier performance evaluation, and controlling for confounding between subgroups elucidates the true associations between variables and model failure. These results can help guide developing future breast cancer detection models.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑