Table 4: Summary of representative studies using other less popular methods (e.g., collective multiple measurements) for mammographic tissue segmentation. denotes correlation coefficient; AUC denotes area under ROC curve. Note that () largely identical studies are excluded in the list and () in case of multiple results, only the best reported results are listed.

Study Year Number of density categories Modalities Number of views Number of images Segmentation evaluation Risk/density estimation accuracy

Collective multiple measurements
Kallenberg et al. [67] 2011 Dense and fatty Digitised SFM MLO 1300 Visually assessed; Pearson (percent density, dense area) = 0.911, 0.895 (automatic-Cumulus)N/A
Li et al. [68] 2012 Dense and fatty Digitised SFM MLO 765 cases and 747 controlsVisually assessed; = 0.884 (automatic-Cumulus); AUC = 0.589 (four densities: 5%, 25%–50%, 50%–75%, and 75%)N/A

Other methods
Chen et al. [69] 2012 Dense and fatty Digitised SFM MLO 321 (MIAS) Visually assessed 70% (BI-RADS)
Chen et al. [70] 2013 Dense and fatty Digitised SFM MLO and CC 321 (MIAS) and 831 (DDSM)Visually assessed 76% MIAS, 81% DDSM (BI-RADS)