arXiv subjects

Mason C. Cleveland

Publications and source records attributed to Mason C. Cleveland.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Towards Early Detection: AI-Based Five-Year Forecasting of Breast Cancer Risk Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Imaging

As early detection of breast cancer strongly favors successful therapeutic outcomes, there is major commercial interest in optimizing breast cancer screening. However, current risk prediction models achieve modest performance and do not incorporate digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) imaging, which was FDA-approved for breast cancer screening in 2011. To address this unmet need, we present a deep learning (DL)-based framework capable of forecasting an individual patient's 5-year breast cancer risk directly from screening DBT. Using an unparalleled dataset of 161,753 DBT examinations from 50,590 patients, we trained a risk predictor based on features extracted using the Meta AI DINOv2 image encoder, combined with a cumulative hazard layer, to assess a patient's likelihood of developing breast cancer over five years. On a held-out test set, our best-performing model achieved an AUROC of 0.80 on predictions within 5 years. These findings reveal the high potential of DBT-based DL approaches to complement traditional risk assessment tools, and serve as a promising basis for additional investigation to validate and enhance our work.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2025

Analysis of the 2024 BraTS Meningioma Radiotherapy Planning Automated Segmentation Challenge

The 2024 Brain Tumor Segmentation Meningioma Radiotherapy (BraTS-MEN-RT) challenge aimed to advance automated segmentation algorithms using the largest known multi-institutional dataset of 750 radiotherapy planning brain MRIs with expert-annotated target labels for patients with intact or postoperative meningioma that underwent either conventional external beam radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery. Each case included a defaced 3D post-contrast T1-weighted radiotherapy planning MRI in its native acquisition space, accompanied by a single-label "target volume" representing the gross tumor volume (GTV) and any at-risk post-operative site. Target volume annotations adhered to established radiotherapy planning protocols, ensuring consistency across cases and institutions, and were approved by expert neuroradiologists and radiation oncologists. Six participating teams developed, containerized, and evaluated automated segmentation models using this comprehensive dataset. Team rankings were assessed using a modified lesion-wise Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff Distance (95HD). The best reported average lesion-wise DSC and 95HD was 0.815 and 26.92 mm, respectively. BraTS-MEN-RT is expected to significantly advance automated radiotherapy planning by enabling precise tumor segmentation and facilitating tailored treatment, ultimately improving patient outcomes. We describe the design and results from the BraTS-MEN-RT challenge.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Is Open-Source There Yet? A Comparative Study on Commercial and Open-Source LLMs in Their Ability to Label Chest X-Ray Reports

Introduction: With the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), there have been numerous new open source as well as commercial models. While recent publications have explored GPT-4 in its application to extracting information of interest from radiology reports, there has not been a real-world comparison of GPT-4 to different leading open-source models. Materials and Methods: Two different and independent datasets were used. The first dataset consists of 540 chest x-ray reports that were created at the Massachusetts General Hospital between July 2019 and July 2021. The second dataset consists of 500 chest x-ray reports from the ImaGenome dataset. We then compared the commercial models GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 from OpenAI to the open-source models Mistral-7B, Mixtral-8x7B, Llama2-13B, Llama2-70B, QWEN1.5-72B and CheXbert and CheXpert-labeler in their ability to accurately label the presence of multiple findings in x-ray text reports using different prompting techniques. Results: On the ImaGenome dataset, the best performing open-source model was Llama2-70B with micro F1-scores of 0.972 and 0.970 for zero- and few-shot prompts, respectively. GPT-4 achieved micro F1-scores of 0.975 and 0.984, respectively. On the institutional dataset, the best performing open-source model was QWEN1.5-72B with micro F1-scores of 0.952 and 0.965 for zero- and few-shot prompting, respectively. GPT-4 achieved micro F1-scores of 0.975 and 0.973, respectively. Conclusion: In this paper, we show that while GPT-4 is superior to open-source models in zero-shot report labeling, the implementation of few-shot prompting can bring open-source models on par with GPT-4. This shows that open-source models could be a performant and privacy preserving alternative to GPT-4 for the task of radiology report classification.

cs.CL↗