mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2305.04422 ↗First posted 8 May 2023eess.IV cs.CV cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2023.

Builds on

4 of 14 references.

References · 4

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,321
  2. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,457
  3. 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,962
  4. 2017Detecting and classifying lesions in mammograms with Deep Learningcited by 47

Built on by

Not cited yet.