Literature DB >> 20564067

Breast cancer risk estimation with artificial neural networks revisited: discrimination and calibration.

Turgay Ayer1, Oguzhan Alagoz, Jagpreet Chhatwal, Jude W Shavlik, Charles E Kahn, Elizabeth S Burnside.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Discriminating malignant breast lesions from benign ones and accurately predicting the risk of breast cancer for individual patients are crucial to successful clinical decisions. In the past, several artificial neural network (ANN) models have been developed for breast cancer-risk prediction. All studies have reported discrimination performance, but not one has assessed calibration, which is an equivalently important measure for accurate risk prediction. In this study, the authors have evaluated whether an artificial neural network (ANN) trained on a large prospectively collected dataset of consecutive mammography findings can discriminate between benign and malignant disease and accurately predict the probability of breast cancer for individual patients.
METHODS: Our dataset consisted of 62,219 consecutively collected mammography findings matched with the Wisconsin State Cancer Reporting System. The authors built a 3-layer feedforward ANN with 1000 hidden-layer nodes. The authors trained and tested their ANN by using 10-fold cross-validation to predict the risk of breast cancer. The authors used area the under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity to evaluate discriminative performance of the radiologists and their ANN. The authors assessed the accuracy of risk prediction (ie, calibration) of their ANN by using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test.
RESULTS: Their ANN demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC, 0.965) compared with the radiologists (AUC, 0.939; P<.001). The authors' ANN was also well calibrated as shown by an H-L goodness of fit P-value of .13.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors' ANN can effectively discriminate malignant abnormalities from benign ones and accurately predict the risk of breast cancer for individual abnormalities. Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20564067      PMCID: PMC2920215          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  56 in total

1.  Relationship between Brier score and area under the binormal ROC curve.

Authors:  Mitsuru Ikeda; Takeo Ishigaki; Kazunobu Yamauchi
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 2.  Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Promoting an ethical approach to unproven screening imaging tests.

Authors:  Evelyn C Y Chan
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Informed and shared decision making: an alternative to the debate over unproven screening tests.

Authors:  Bruce J Hillman
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center.

Authors:  T W Freer; M J Ulissey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Determining the quality of breast cancer care: do tumor registries measure up?

Authors:  N A Bickell; M R Chassin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-02       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.

Authors:  Rita E Sohlich; Edward A Sickles; Elizabeth S Burnside; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Use of an artificial neural network to quantitate risk of malignancy for abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  R K Orr
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Prediction of breast cancer malignancy using an artificial neural network.

Authors:  C E Floyd; J Y Lo; A J Yun; D C Sullivan; P J Kornguth
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  34 in total

1.  Integrating machine learning and physician knowledge to improve the accuracy of breast biopsy.

Authors:  I Dutra; H Nassif; D Page; J Shavlik; R M Strigel; Y Wu; M E Elezaby; E Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

2.  The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Manuf Serv Oper Manag       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.600

3.  Can Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Increase or Predict the Success Rate of Testicular Sperm Aspiration in Patients With Azoospermia?

Authors:  Heng Xue; Shou-Yang Wang; Li-Gang Cui; Kai Hong
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

5.  A new hybrid case-based reasoning approach for medical diagnosis systems.

Authors:  Dina A Sharaf-El-Deen; Ibrahim F Moawad; M E Khalifa
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  CaliForest: Calibrated Random Forest for Health Data.

Authors:  Yubin Park; Joyce C Ho
Journal:  Proc ACM Conf Health Inference Learn (2020)       Date:  2020-04-02

7.  Optimal Breast Biopsy Decision-Making Based on Mammographic Features and Demographic Factors.

Authors:  Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Oper Res       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 3.310

8.  Predicting Malignancy from Mammography Findings and Surgical Biopsies.

Authors:  Pedro Ferreira; Nuno A Fonseca; Inês Dutra; Ryan Woods; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed)       Date:  2011-11

9.  Predicting quality of life after breast cancer surgery using ANN-based models: performance comparison with MR.

Authors:  Jinn-Tsong Tsai; Ming-Feng Hou; Yao-Mei Chen; Thomas T H Wan; Hao-Yun Kao; Hon-Yi Shi
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Predicting malignancy from mammography findings and image-guided core biopsies.

Authors:  Pedro Ferreira; Nuno A Fonseca; Inês Dutra; Ryan Woods; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  Int J Data Min Bioinform       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 0.667

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.