A comprehensive methodology for determining the most informative mammographic features

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 941-947

  Wu, Yirong ^a   Alagoz, Oguzhan ^b,c   Ayvaci, Mehmet U S ^d   Munoz Del Rio, Alejandro ^a   Vanness, David J ^a   Woods, Ryan ^e   Burnside, Elizabeth S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b Wisconsin Electric Machines and Power Electronics Consortium   (United States)

^c BILKENT UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

BI RADS; Breast cancer; Decision support; Informatics; Mammography; Mutual information

Indexed keywords

BI-RADS; BREAST CANCER; DECISION SUPPORTS; INFORMATICS; MUTUAL INFORMATIONS;

BIOMINERALIZATION; BONE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DISEASES; HEALTH INSURANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; BREAST NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84885419514     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-013-9588-5     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas, Reston, Va., 2003
2. D'Orsi C, Kopans D: Mammography interpretation: the BI-RADS method. American Family Physician 55:1548-1550, 1997
3. Burnside ES, et al: The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J American College of Radiology 6:851-860, 2009
4. Liberman L, Abramson A, Squires F, Glassman J, Morris E, Dershaw D: The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:35-40, 1998
5. Swets J, Getty D, Pickett R, D'Orsi C, Seltzer S, McNeil B: Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy. J Medical Decision Making 11:9-18, 1991
6. Berube M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D: Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J 49:223-228, 1998
7. Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E: Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Annals of Oncology 14:450-454, 2003
8. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles E, Smith-Bindman R: Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648-657, 2009
9. Ayer T, Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Kahn Jr, CE, Wood R, Burnside ES: Comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network models in breast cancer risk estimation. RadioGraphics 30:13-22, 2010
10. Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Lindstrom MJ, Kahn Jr, CE, Shaffer KA, Burnside ES: A logistic regression model based on the national mammography database format to aid breast cancer diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1117-1127, 2009
11. Dreiseitl S, Ohno-Machado L: Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J Biomed Inform 35:352-359, 2002
12. Tu J: Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1225-1231, 1996
13. Shannon C, Weaver W: The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1949
14. Benish W: Mutual information as an index of diagnostic test performance. Methods of Information in Medicine 42:260-264, 2003
15. Boyd N, Martin L, Bronskill M, Yaffe M, Duric N, Minkin S: Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1224-1237, 2010
16. Boyd N, et al: Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 6:798-808, 2005
17. Martin L, et al: Family history, mammographic density, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:456-463, 2010
18. Wolfe J: Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 126:1130-1137, 1976
19. Carney P, et al: Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168-175, 2003
20. Mandelson M, et al: Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081-1087, 2000
21. Foote M: Wisconsin Cancer Reporting System: a population-based registry. Wisconsin Medical Journal 98:17-18, 1999
22. Roos T, Wettig H, Grunwald P, Myllymaki P, Tirri H: On discriminative Bayesian network classifiers and logistic regression. Machine Learning 59:267-296, 2005
23. Domingos P, Pazzani M: On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning 29:103-130, 1997
24. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I: The Weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explorations(11), 2009
25. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ: An Introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993
26. Ince R, Mazzoni A, Bartels A, Logothetis N, Panzeri S: A novel test to determine the significance of neural selectivity to single and multiple potentially correlated stimulus features. J Neuroscience Methods, 2011
27. DeLong E, DeLong D, Clarke-Pearson D: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837-845, 1988
28. Guyon I, Elisseeff A: An Introduction to variable and feature selection. J Machine Learning Research 3:1157-1182, 2003
29. Tourassi G, Frederick E, Markey M, Floyd C: Application of the mutual information criterion for feature selection in compuet-aided diagnosis. Medical Physics 28:2394-2402, 2001
30. Winchester D, Winchester D, Hudis C, Norton L: Breast cancer. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007
31. Woods R, Oliphant L, Shinki K, Page CD, Shavlik J, Burnside E: Validation of results from knowledge discovery: mass denisty as a predictor of breast cancer. J Digital Imaging 23:554-561, 2010
32. Woods R, Sisney G, Salkowski L, Shinki K, Lin Y, Burnside E: The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer. Radiology 258:417-425, 2011
33. Balagani K, Phoha V: On the feature selection criterion based on an approximation of multimensional mutual information. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 32:1342-1343, 2010
34. Battiti R: Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised neural net learning. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 5:537-550, 1994
35. Peng H, Long F, Ding C: Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 27:1226-1238, 2005
36. Sox H, Blatt M, Higgins M, Marton K: Medical decision making. Butterworth-Heinemann, Philadelphia, 1988