This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess whether AI-based models improve reproducibility of breast density (BD) and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) classification and to explore whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) can serve as a proof-of-concept platform for systemic risk surrogates. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 213 women (mean age 58.3 years; range 28–80) underwent CEM in 2022–2023. Histology was obtained when lesions were present (BI-RADS 4/5). Five radiologists independently graded BD and BPE; consensus served as the ground truth. Linear regression and a deep neural network (DNN) were compared with a simple linear baseline. Inter-reader agreement was measured with Fleiss’ κ. External validation was performed on 500 BI-RADS C/D cases from VinDr-Mammo targeted density endpoints. A secondary exploratory analysis tested a multi-output DNN to predict BD/BPE together with bone mineral density and systolic blood pressure surrogates. Results: Baseline inter-reader agreement was κ = 0.68 (BD) and κ = 0.54 (BPE). With AI support, agreement improved to κ = 0.82. Linear regression reduced the prediction error by 26% versus the baseline (MSE 0.641 vs. 0.864), while DNN achieved similar performance (MSE 0.638). AI assistance decreased false positives in C/D by 22% and shortened the reading time by 35% (6.3→4.1 min). Validation confirmed stability (MSE ~0.65; AUC 0.74–0.75). In exploratory analysis, surrogates correlated with DXA (r = 0.82) and sphygmomanometry (r = 0.76). Conclusions: AI significantly improves reproducibility and efficiency of BD/BPE assessments in CEM and supports feasibility of systemic risk profiling.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grezia et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: