↓ Skip to main content

Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, May 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks
Published in
Insights into Imaging, May 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01396-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patryk Hejduk, Raphael Sexauer, Carlotta Ruppert, Karol Borkowski, Jan Unkelbach, Noemi Schmidt

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a commercially available AI platform for the automatic determination of image quality in mammography and tomosynthesis considering a standardized set of features. In this retrospective study, 11,733 mammograms and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis of 4200 patients from two institutions were analyzed by assessing the presence of seven features which impact image quality in regard to breast positioning. Deep learning was applied to train five dCNN models on features detecting the presence of anatomical landmarks and three dCNN models for localization features. The validity of models was assessed by the calculation of the mean squared error in a test dataset and was compared to the reading by experienced radiologists. Accuracies of the dCNN models ranged between 93.0% for the nipple visualization and 98.5% for the depiction of the pectoralis muscle in the CC view. Calculations based on regression models allow for precise measurements of distances and angles of breast positioning on mammograms and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis. All models showed almost perfect agreement compared to human reading with Cohen's kappa scores above 0.9. An AI-based quality assessment system using a dCNN allows for precise, consistent and observer-independent rating of digital mammography and synthetic 2D reconstructions from tomosynthesis. Automation and standardization of quality assessment enable real-time feedback to technicians and radiologists that shall reduce a number of inadequate examinations according to PGMI (Perfect, Good, Moderate, Inadequate) criteria, reduce a number of recalls and provide a dependable training platform for inexperienced technicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Unspecified 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 3 13%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Unspecified 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 13 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2023.
All research outputs
#19,762,557
of 24,287,697 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#849
of 1,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,113
of 368,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#36
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,697 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.