Literature DB >> 23503987

A comprehensive methodology for determining the most informative mammographic features.

Yirong Wu1, Oguzhan Alagoz, Mehmet U S Ayvaci, Alejandro Munoz Del Rio, David J Vanness, Ryan Woods, Elizabeth S Burnside.   

Abstract

This study aims to determine the most informative mammographic features for breast cancer diagnosis using mutual information (MI) analysis. Our Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-approved database consists of 44,397 consecutive structured mammography reports for 20,375 patients collected from 2005 to 2008. The reports include demographic risk factors (age, family and personal history of breast cancer, and use of hormone therapy) and mammographic features from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. We calculated MI using Shannon's entropy measure for each feature with respect to the outcome (benign/malignant using a cancer registry match as reference standard). In order to evaluate the validity of the MI rankings of features, we trained and tested naïve Bayes classifiers on the feature with tenfold cross-validation, and measured the predictive ability using area under the ROC curve (AUC). We used a bootstrapping approach to assess the distributional properties of our estimates, and the DeLong method to compare AUC. Based on MI, we found that mass margins and mass shape were the most informative features for breast cancer diagnosis. Calcification morphology, mass density, and calcification distribution provided predictive information for distinguishing benign and malignant breast findings. Breast composition, associated findings, and special cases provided little information in this task. We also found that the rankings of mammographic features with MI and AUC were generally consistent. MI analysis provides a framework to determine the value of different mammographic features in the pursuit of optimal (i.e., accurate and efficient) breast cancer diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23503987      PMCID: PMC3782597          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-013-9588-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  27 in total

1.  Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  J A Swets; D J Getty; R M Pickett; C J D'Orsi; S E Seltzer; B J McNeil
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1991 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised neural net learning.

Authors:  R Battiti
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Netw       Date:  1994

3.  Family history, mammographic density, and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Lisa J Martin; Olga Melnichouk; Helen Guo; Anna M Chiarelli; T Gregory Hislop; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin; John L Hopper; Norman F Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes.

Authors:  J V Tu
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer.

Authors:  J N Wolfe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.

Authors:  L Liberman; A F Abramson; F B Squires; J R Glassman; E A Morris; D D Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables.

Authors:  Aruna Venkatesan; Philip Chu; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  A logistic regression model based on the national mammography database format to aid breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Charles E Kahn; Katherine A Shaffer; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Validation of results from knowledge discovery: mass density as a predictor of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ryan W Woods; Louis Oliphant; Kazuhiko Shinki; David Page; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  11 in total

1.  Developing a utility decision framework to evaluate predictive models in breast cancer risk estimation.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Xianqiao Chen; Jie Liu; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-17

2.  Quantifying predictive capability of electronic health records for the most harmful breast cancer.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jun Fan; Peggy Peissig; Richard Berg; Ahmad Pahlavan Tafti; Jie Yin; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jennifer Cox; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2018-03-07

3.  Discriminatory power of common genetic variants in personalized breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Jie Liu; Irene Ong; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-03-24

4.  Comparing the value of mammographic features and genetic variants in breast cancer risk prediction.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; David Page; Peggy Peissig; Catherine McCarty; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2014-11-14

5.  Improving breast cancer risk prediction by using demographic risk factors, abnormality features on mammograms and genetic variants.

Authors:  Shara I Feld; Kaitlin M Woo; Roxana Alexandridis; Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jennifer Cox; C David Page; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

6.  Comparing Mammography Abnormality Features to Genetic Variants in the Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women Recommended for Breast Biopsy.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jie Liu; Yirong Wu; Adedayo A Onitilo; Catherine A McCarty; C David Page; Peggy L Peissig; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Terrie Kitchner; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Using multidimensional mutual information to prioritize mammographic features for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Wu; D J Vanness; E S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

8.  Structure-Leveraged Methods in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Jun Fan; Yirong Wu; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jie Liu; Irene M Ong; Peggy Peissig; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Mach Learn Res       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.654

9.  Developing a clinical utility framework to evaluate prediction models in radiogenomics.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2015-03-17

10.  Using information theory to identify redundancy in common laboratory tests in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Joon Lee; David M Maslove
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.