This paper makes several contributions. Among these, only 20-40% yield a diagnosis of cancer (5). The authors declare no conflict of interest. To whom correspondence should be addressed. Work done while visiting NYU. In the reader study, we compared the performance of our best model to that of radiologists and found our model to be as accurate as radiologists both in terms of area under ROC curve (AUC) and area under precision-recall curve (PRAUC). We also found that a hybrid model, taking the average of the probabilities of malignancy predicted by a radiologist and by our neural network, yields more accurate predictions than either of the two separately. This suggests that our network and radiologists learned different aspects of the task and that our model could be effective as a tool providing radiologists a second reader. With this contribution, research groups that are working on improving screening mammography, which may not have access to a large training dataset like ours, will be able to directly use our model in their research or to use our pretrained weights as an initialization to train models with less data. By making our models public, we invite other groups to validate our results and test their robustness to shifts in the data distribution. The dataset includes 229,426 digital screening mammography exams (1,001,093 images) from 141,473 patients. For each breast, we assign two binary labels: from biopsies. We have 5,832 exams with at least one biopsy the absence/presence of malignant findings in a breast, performed within 120 days of the screening mammogram. With Among these, biopsies confirmed malignant findings for 985 left and right breasts, each exam has a total of four binary (8.4%) breasts and benign findings for 5,556 (47.6%) breasts.

The excellent soft tissue contrast and flexibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) makes it a very powerful diagnostic tool for a wide range of disorders, including neurological, musculoskeletal, and oncological diseases. However, the long acquisition time in MRI, which can easily exceed 30 minutes, leads to low patient throughput, problems with patient comfort and compliance, artifacts from patient motion, and high exam costs. As a consequence, increasing imaging speed has been a major ongoing research goal since the advent of MRI in the 1970s. Increases in imaging speed have been achieved through both hardware developments (such as improved magnetic field gradients) and software advances (such as new pulse sequences). One noteworthy development in this context is parallel imaging, introduced in the 1990s, which allows multiple data points to be sampled simultaneously, rather than in a traditional sequential order [39, 26, 9].