This evaluation probes the classification accuracy and prototype-based interpretability of deep learning models on mammography datasets. It measures how well models predict malignancy while ensuring that their learned prototypes align with domain-specific radiological features (e.g., mass/calcification types and BIRADS descriptors). Use when the user wants to benchmark on CBIS-DDSM, CMMD, VinDr-Mammo, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill breast-cancer-prototype-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Breast Cancer Prototype Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-breast-cancer-prototype-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: breast-cancer-prototype-eval
description: This evaluation probes the classification accuracy and prototype-based interpretability of deep learning models on mammography datasets. It measures how well models predict malignancy while ensuring that their learned prototypes align with domain-specific radiological features (e.g., mass/calcification types and BIRADS descriptors). Use when the user wants to benchmark on CBIS-DDSM, CMMD, VinDr-Mammo, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2403.20260
bibtex_key: pathak2024prototype
confidence: high
---
# breast-cancer-prototype-eval
> Prototype-based Interpretable Breast Cancer Prediction Models: Analysis and Challenges — Pathak et al. (2024) (arXiv:2403.20260, 2024)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes the classification accuracy and prototype-based interpretability of deep learning models on mammography datasets. It measures how well models predict malignancy while ensuring that their learned prototypes align with domain-specific radiological features (e.g., mass/calcification types and BIRADS descriptors).
## Datasets
- **CBIS-DDSM** — total 3103; splits: train (2458), test (645)
- **CMMD** — total 5202; splits: train (3199), test (2002)
- **VinDr-Mammo** — total 20000; splits: train (16000), test (4000)
## Metrics
- `F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall: 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall). Reported as mean and standard deviation over three random seeds.
- `AUC` — range: [0, 1]
- Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, measuring the model's ability to discriminate between malignant and benign classes across all classification thresholds.
- `IoU` — range: [0, 1]
- Intersection over Union between the activated prototype region and the ground truth Region of Interest (ROI). Calculated for top-1, top-10, and all activated prototypes.
- `DSC` — range: [0, 1]
- Dice Similarity Coefficient: 2 * |A ∩ B| / (|A| + |B|), measuring spatial overlap between prototype activations and annotated ROIs.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Mammography images (mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views) resized to 1536x768 pixels.
**Output**: Binary classification prediction (malignant/benign) and activated prototype image patches/regions for interpretability.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(preds, gold, prototype_masks, gt_masks):
f1 = f1_score(gold, preds)
auc = roc_auc_score(gold, preds)
iou_scores = [iou(p_mask, g_mask) for p_mask, g_mask in zip(prototype_masks, gt_masks)]
dsc_scores = [2 * np.sum(p * g) / (np.sum(p) + np.sum(g)) for p, g in zip(prototype_masks, gt_masks)]
return {'F1': f1, 'AUC': auc, 'IoU': np.mean(iou_scores), 'DSC': np.mean(dsc_scores)}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using image-level random splits instead of patient-wise splits, which causes data leakage since multiple views from the same patient appear in both train and test sets.
- Comparing prototype visualization patch sizes across different architectures without normalization, as ProtoPNet uses percentile-based upsampling while PIP-Net uses fixed 130x130 patches.
- Defining prototype purity categories flatly instead of following the hierarchical BIRADS lexicon (abnormality type -> shape/margin/morphology/distribution), leading to inaccurate coverage and specialization scores.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We calculate the intersection over union (IoU) and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) for the top-1 (IoU1, DSC1), top-10 (IoU10, DSC10) and all (IoUAll, DSCAll) activated prototypes with the annotated ROI.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{pathak2024prototype,
title={Prototype-based Interpretable Breast Cancer Prediction Models: Analysis and Challenges},
author={Pathak et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2403.20260}
}
```
- arXiv: 2403.20260
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!