M-SYNTH is organized into a directory structure that indicates the parameters. Code and dataset is released with the Creative Commons 1.0 Universal License We now review the timing required to perform mass insertion and imaging. In Table 2, we review the imaging time required for each breast density. The time varies from 2.84 GPU), we were able to generate the complete dataset in about two weeks.Breast Density Time (min) Fatty 13.463809 Scattered 11.002291 Hetero 3.655613 Dense 2.842028 Table 2: Timing analysis for imaging by breast density. Additional renderings of the breast phantoms generated for the study are shown in Figure 1, demonstrating a high level of detail and anatomical variability within and among models.

Mammographic breast density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. Recently there has been interest in breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography, as this modality provides an orthogonal and highly quantitative assessment of breast tissue. However, its 3D nature poses analytic challenges related to delineating and aggregating complex structures across slices. Here, we applied an in-house machine-learning algorithm to assess breast density on normal breasts in three MRI datasets. Breast density was consistent across different datasets (0.104 - 0.114). Analysis across different age groups also demonstrated strong consistency across datasets and confirmed a trend of decreasing density with age as reported in previous studies. MR breast density was correlated with mammographic breast density, although some notable differences suggest that certain breast density components are captured only on MRI. Future work will determine how to integrate MR breast density with current tools to improve future breast cancer risk prediction.

The development of clinically reliable artificial intelligence (AI) systems for mammography is hindered by profound heterogeneity in data quality, metadata standards, and population distributions across public datasets. This heterogeneity introduces dataset-specific biases that severely compromise the generalizability of the model, a fundamental barrier to clinical deployment. We present MammoClean, a public framework for standardization and bias quantification in mammography datasets. MammoClean standardizes case selection, image processing (including laterality and intensity correction), and unifies metadata into a consistent multi-view structure. We provide a comprehensive review of breast anatomy, imaging characteristics, and public mammography datasets to systematically identify key sources of bias. Applying MammoClean to three heterogeneous datasets (CBIS-DDSM, TOMPEI-CMMD, VinDr-Mammo), we quantify substantial distributional shifts in breast density and abnormality prevalence. Critically, we demonstrate the direct impact of data corruption: AI models trained on corrupted datasets exhibit significant performance degradation compared to their curated counterparts. By using MammoClean to identify and mitigate bias sources, researchers can construct unified multi-dataset training corpora that enable development of robust models with superior cross-domain generalization. MammoClean provides an essential, reproducible pipeline for bias-aware AI development in mammography, facilitating fairer comparisons and advancing the creation of safe, effective systems that perform equitably across diverse patient populations and clinical settings. The open-source code is publicly available from: https://github.com/Minds-R-Lab/MammoClean.

Mammography, the current standard for breast cancer screening, has reduced sensitivity in women with dense breast tissue, contributing to missed or delayed diagnoses. Thermalytix, an AI-based thermal imaging modality, captures functional vascular and metabolic cues that may complement mammographic structural data. This study investigates whether a breast density-informed multi-modal AI framework can improve cancer detection by dynamically selecting the appropriate imaging modality based on breast tissue composition. A total of 324 women underwent both mammography and thermal imaging. Mammography images were analyzed using a multi-view deep learning model, while Thermalytix assessed thermal images through vascular and thermal radiomics. The proposed framework utilized Mammography AI for fatty breasts and Thermalytix AI for dense breasts, optimizing predictions based on tissue type. This multi-modal AI framework achieved a sensitivity of 94.55% (95% CI: 88.54-100) and specificity of 79.93% (95% CI: 75.14-84.71), outperforming standalone mammography AI (sensitivity 81.82%, specificity 86.25%) and Thermalytix AI (sensitivity 92.73%, specificity 75.46%). Importantly, the sensitivity of Mammography dropped significantly in dense breasts (67.86%) versus fatty breasts (96.30%), whereas Thermalytix AI maintained high and consistent sensitivity in both (92.59% and 92.86%, respectively). This demonstrates that a density-informed multi-modal AI framework can overcome key limitations of unimodal screening and deliver high performance across diverse breast compositions. The proposed framework is interpretable, low-cost, and easily deployable, offering a practical path to improving breast cancer screening outcomes in both high-resource and resource-limited settings.

Precise mass location and extent (e.g., mass boundaries) are typically not available in the patient's records, and it is burdensome, error-prone, and sometimes impossible to

M-SYNTH is organized into a directory structure that indicates the parameters. Code and dataset is released with the Creative Commons 1.0 Universal License We now review the timing required to perform mass insertion and imaging. In Table 2, we review the imaging time required for each breast density. The time varies from 2.84 GPU), we were able to generate the complete dataset in about two weeks.Breast Density Time (min) Fatty 13.463809 Scattered 11.002291 Hetero 3.655613 Dense 2.842028 Table 2: Timing analysis for imaging by breast density. Additional renderings of the breast phantoms generated for the study are shown in Figure 1, demonstrating a high level of detail and anatomical variability within and among models.

Responsible for approximately two million new cases and over six hundred thousand deaths in 2022 alone (Sung et al., 2021), breast cancer remains a prominent global health concern, and is expected to account nearly one-third of all newly diagnosed cancers among women in the United States (DeSantis et al., 2016). According to the most recent report from International Agency for Research on Cancer (Bray et al., 2024), it is one of the most widespread cancers diagnosed worldwide, both in the number of cases and associated deaths. Consequently, medical imaging techniques are indispensable for screening, diagnosis, and further research into the disease. Historically, the most common imaging technique for breast cancer screening is digital mammography (DM), in which a 2D x-ray projection of a compressed breast is taken. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), a pseudo-3D imaging technique, has been increasingly adopted, demonstrating improved screening performance (Asbeutah et al., 2019; Sprague et al., 2023).

A precise assessment of the risk of breast lesions can greatly lower it and assist physicians in choosing the best course of action. To categorise breast lesions, the majority of current computer-aided systems only use characteristics from mammograms. Although this method is practical, it does not completely utilise clinical reports' valuable information to attain the best results. When compared to utilising mammography alone, will clinical features greatly enhance the categorisation of breast lesions? How may clinical features and mammograms be combined most effectively? In what ways may explainable AI approaches improve the interpretability and reliability of models used to diagnose breast cancer? To answer these basic problems, a comprehensive investigation is desperately needed. In order to integrate mammography and categorical clinical characteristics, this study examines a number of multimodal deep networks grounded on feature concatenation, co-attention, and cross-attention. The model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.98, accuracy of 0.96, F1-score of 0.94, precision of 0.92, and recall of 0.95 when tested on publicly accessible datasets (TCGA and CBIS-DDSM).

Background: Breast density, as derived from mammographic images and defined by the American College of Radiology's Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. Breast ultrasound (BUS) is an alternative breast cancer screening modality, particularly useful for early detection in low-resource, rural contexts. The purpose of this study was to explore an artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict BI-RADS mammographic breast density category from clinical, handheld BUS imaging. Methods: All data are sourced from the Hawaii and Pacific Islands Mammography Registry. We compared deep learning methods from BUS imaging, as well as machine learning models from image statistics alone. The use of AI-derived BUS density as a risk factor for breast cancer was then compared to clinical BI-RADS breast density while adjusting for age. The BUS data were split by individual into 70/20/10% groups for training, validation, and testing. Results: 405,120 clinical BUS images from 14.066 women were selected for inclusion in this study, resulting in 9.846 women for training (302,574 images), 2,813 for validation (11,223 images), and 1,406 for testing (4,042 images). On the held-out testing set, the strongest AI model achieves AUROC 0.854 predicting BI-RADS mammographic breast density from BUS imaging and outperforms all shallow machine learning methods based on image statistics. In cancer risk prediction, age-adjusted AI BUS breast density predicted 5-year breast cancer risk with 0.633 AUROC, as compared to 0.637 AUROC from age-adjusted clinical breast density. Conclusions: BI-RADS mammographic breast density can be estimated from BUS imaging with high accuracy using a deep learning model. Furthermore, we demonstrate that AI-derived BUS breast density is predictive of 5-year breast cancer risk in our population.