Research:
A Bayesian Network Model of Mammography Findings
We
have built a bayesian network to serve as decision support tool for
radiologists interpreting mammograms. The radiographic findings reported
on mammography have been standardized using the BI-RADS terminology.
The probability of different breast diseases depends on the different
BI-RADS findings (descriptors) observed. Our bayesian network relates
probabilistic relationships among these BI-RADS descriptors with breast
diseases. The BI-RADS terminology is a taxonomy of terms, with each
term having different possible distinctions (possible values for that
descriptor). This is shown in the figure to the right.
Our model is shown in this figure at the left. BI-RADS terms are shown
as circles (nodes) surrounding the central "disease" node,
that represents the possible breast diseases. Each node has several
discrete states, corresponding to the possible values for the corresponding
BI-rads descriptor.
This table shows the different diseases (benign and malignant) that our
model assesses.
In order to implement this Bayesian network as a decision support tool,
we created a web page that can be used to report mammography findings
(in terms of BI-RADS descriptors):
After
this web form is submitted, a differential diagnosis is returned to
the user, with the diseases ranked in decreasing order of probability
for each disease:
In addition to using the Bayesian network to assess the probabilities of different diseases of the breast, this network can be used to help the radiologist interpret the concordance of histopathology of breast biopsy with mammography findings. Because the observance of particular combinations of BI-RADS findings on mammography implies that some diseases are much more likely than others, certain histopathologies will be discordant with the mammography findings.
The disease probabilities provided by our model can be combined with the
histopathology to produce a probability of sampling error. We recently
studied 92 patients who underwent breast biopsy and compared the ability
of the Bayesian network to predict concordant and non-concordant cases
compared with experts. The network performed extremely well, detecting
all non-concordant cases (100% sensitivity) with few false positives
(calling a concordant case "non-concordant"; 91% specificity).
The histogram above shows that the network produced a high probability
for sampling error for the non concordant cases. Among the concordant
cases, most had a low probability of sampling error.