S·M

Research record

Publications, talks & posters

Deep learning applied to musculoskeletal, breast, neuro, thoracic and cardiac imaging, along with teaching radiologists how to read and build AI studies.

Case studies

Four studies, in brief

Problem, contribution, method, result and limitation for four published studies. Numbers are taken from the final publications. All are research models, not deployed clinical products.

Breast imaging  |  Acad Radiol 2019 · Co-author; model developer

Breast cancer risk from the mammogram itself

Clinical problem
Breast density is a coarse risk marker. The question was whether a network reading the whole mammogram could stratify future risk better.
My contribution
I wrote the source code and programmed the CNN risk model, working in Columbia’s breast imaging AI group with Ha (first author) and Jambawalikar (senior author). This line of work led to my NIH StARR-funded CAPRI resident research year.
Approach
Retrospective case-control study: prior mammograms of 210 women who later developed cancer (420 images) vs. 527 controls (1,054 images). A fully convolutional network produced a pixel-wise risk map, with an 80/20 split and five-fold cross-validation.
Published finding
The network score and breast density were independent predictors. The network’s odds ratio was 4.42 (95% CI 3.4–5.7) vs. 1.67 (1.4–1.9) for density, with 72% accuracy in identifying the case group.
Limitation
Single institution, retrospective and relatively small. The authors expected more data to improve the model. A research model.
Odds ratios for later breast cancerCNN pixel-wise risk score odds ratio 4.42 (95% CI 3.4 to 5.7); breast density odds ratio 1.67 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). Reference line at 1.CNN risk score4.42 (3.4–5.7)Breast density1.67 (1.4–1.9)01246Odds ratio (95% CI); dashed line = no association
Multivariate odds ratios as published.

MSK · Pediatric  |  J Digit Imaging 2018 · First author

Machine-assisted bone age (MABAL)

Clinical problem
Bone-age reads against the Greulich–Pyle atlas are common, slow and observer-dependent. Earlier deep-learning attempts were limited by small datasets and generic architectures.
My contribution
First author, working with Columbia co-authors Chang, Ruzal-Shapiro and Ayyala.
Approach
10,289 hand radiographs from our PACS and the public Digital Hand Atlas, split into four sex-and-age cohorts. A custom 14-layer network with residual, inception and spatial-transformer layers was trained from scratch, with augmentation to limit overfitting.
Published finding
Aggregate mean absolute error of 0.637 years on validation and 0.536 years on the test set, where the reference standard averaged two pediatric radiologists. At publication, the best reported deep-learning result for bone age.
Limitation
One institution’s data plus a public atlas, and training labels came from single clinical reads. A research model, not a clinical product.
MABAL pipelineA hand radiograph is routed to one of four networks by sex and age group, each predicting bone age in years. Aggregate test mean absolute error 0.536 years.HandradiographGirls, youngerGirls, olderBoys, youngerBoys, olderBone age(years)Test MAE0.536 yr
Study design as described in the paper. Test MAE is the aggregate across the four cohorts.

MSK · Emergency  |  J Digit Imaging 2020 · First author

Femoral neck fracture detection and Garden classification

Clinical problem
Hip fractures need to be found and classified quickly because displacement drives the surgical choice, but labelled examples, especially nondisplaced Garden I/II fractures, are scarce.
My contribution
First author, working with Columbia MSK co-authors Varada, Goel, Wong and Rasiej.
Approach
1,063 AP hip radiographs from 550 patients. One network localized the femoral neck and a second classified Garden I/II, Garden III/IV or no fracture. Training data were expanded to 9,063 images with GAN-generated radiographs and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) from preoperative hip CT.
Published finding
On 105 held-out real radiographs, fracture vs. no fracture reached AUC 0.92, accuracy 92.3%, sensitivity 0.91 and specificity 0.93. The three-class task reached AUC 0.96 and accuracy 86.0%.
Limitation
Retrospective, single-institution data with a small test set; only 127 real Garden I/II radiographs. A research model, not deployed clinically.
Fracture vs. no fracture AUC by augmentation strategyAUC 0.80 without advanced augmentation, 0.87 with GAN-generated images only, 0.91 with CT-derived DRRs only, and 0.92 with both.No advanced aug.0.80GAN only0.87DRR only0.91GAN + DRR0.9200.501.00
Two-class AUC on the held-out set, as reported for each augmentation strategy. Axis starts at zero.

AI evaluation · MSK  |  J Imaging Inform Med 2024 · Co-author; ground-truth reader

Are saliency maps trustworthy explanations?

Clinical problem
Heatmaps are widely used to show “where the AI looked,” but their reliability had not been tested on musculoskeletal radiographs.
My contribution
Co-author, and one of the three fellowship-trained MSK radiologists who drew the ground-truth boxes, on a Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland study led by Venkatesh (first author) and Yi (senior author).
Approach
Networks trained on the public Stanford MURA upper-extremity dataset. Six gradient-based saliency methods were scored on localization, repeatability, reproducibility and sensitivity to model weights, against consensus boxes from three fellowship-trained MSK radiologists.
Published finding
Every method localized abnormalities worse than radiologists (AUPRC 0.438–0.590 vs. 0.816) and was less repeatable and reproducible. Five passed the weight-sensitivity test, but none met all four criteria. The authors recommend caution before clinical use.
Limitation
One public dataset of upper-extremity radiographs, and gradient-based methods only. Results may differ for other explanation methods, body parts or modalities.
Saliency methods versus radiologistsLocalization AUPRC: methods 0.438 to 0.590, radiologists 0.816. Repeatability IoU: methods 0.427 to 0.551, radiologists 0.613. Reproducibility IoU: methods 0.250 to 0.502, radiologists 0.613.LocalizationAUPRCRepeatabilityIoUReproducibilityIoU00.51Six saliency methods (range)Radiologist average
Reported ranges across the six methods versus the radiologist average. Higher is better.

Peer-reviewed

Journal publications

38 articles. Full author lists are available via each DOI.

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017 & earlier

Podium

Oral presentations

30 presentations, including two invited RSNA courses.

INVITED

  • Interactive Artificial Intelligence for Non-Coders: Object Localization and Image Segmentation.Invited faculty, educational course. RSNA Annual Meeting (virtual), 2020.
  • Hands-on Artificial Intelligence for Non-Coders: Object Localization and Image Segmentation.Invited faculty, educational course. RSNA Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2019.

2022

  • Can we trust saliency maps to “explain” deep learning algorithms for musculoskeletal radiograph abnormality detection?Venkatesh K, Mutasa S, Moore F, Sulam J, Yi PH. SIIM Annual Meeting, 2022.

2021

  • Determining the signal characteristics of disk herniations that are more likely to resorb.Sax AJ, Xia E, Alfaqih M, Mutasa S, Zoga AC, Deely D, Belair J, Kamel S, Morrison WB. Society of Skeletal Radiology, 2021.
  • Fracture incidence before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdown.Sax AJ, Xia E, Deely D, Karasick D, Alfaqih M, Mutasa S, Morrison WB. Society of Skeletal Radiology, 2021.

2020

  • Can AI improve the detection of scaphoid fractures that have equivocal findings on radiograph?Mutasa S, Igbinoba Z, Ubanwa A, Lala S, Wong T. RSNA, 2020.
  • LVHNet: detecting cardiac structural abnormalities with chest X-rays.Elias P, Shreyas B, Mutasa S, Rodriguez V, Leb J, Poterucha T, Perotte A. Medical Imaging Meets NeurIPS, 2020.
  • Virtual pulmonary wedge resection: a CNN-based tool for classifying UIP vs non-UIP ILD on imaging.Mutasa S, D’Souza B, Salvatore M, Lederer D, Shaish H. SIIM Annual Meeting, 2020.
  • Can a CNN-based algorithm aid in identification of patients with BRCA mutation using a mammographic dataset?Mutasa S, Chang P, Ha R. SIIM Annual Meeting, 2020.
  • Physeal diffusion tensor tractography ROI automation with a 3D convolutional neural network.Mutasa S, Liu M, Jambawalikar S, Jaramillo D. Society for Pediatric Radiology, 2020.

2019

  • A prospective analysis distinguishing ADH from DCIS using a CNN.Mutasa S, Chang P, Nemer J, Liu M, Jambawalikar S, Ha R. RSNA, 2019.
  • The effect of chemopreventive agents on a CNN-based breast cancer risk model.Mutasa S, Manley H, Pascual Van Sant E, Chang P, Crew K, Ha R. RSNA, 2019.
  • Rethinking Greulich & Pyle: deep learning models for pediatric bone age assessment.Pan I, Mutasa S, Merck D, Ruzal-Shapiro C, Ayyala R, Swenson D. RSNA, 2019.
  • Effect of chemoprevention on a CNN-based breast cancer risk model using a mammographic dataset of women with ADH, DCIS, or LCIS.Manley H, Mutasa S, Ha R, Crew K. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 2019.
  • Synchronous distributed deep learning for medical imaging.Mutasa S, Chang P. Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging (C-MIMI), 2019.
  • Predicting post-neoadjuvant axillary response using a CNN.Mutasa S, Karcich J, Chang P, Pascual Van Sant E, Connolly E, Chin C, Liu M, Taback B, Ha R. American Roentgen Ray Society, 2019.
  • Can deep learning differentiate HCC from non-HCC on MRI?Mutasa S, Kierans A, Lu L, Hecht A. Society of Abdominal Radiology, 2019.
  • A fully automated segmentation algorithm for the volumetric analysis of perihematomal edema in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.Ironside N, Mutasa S, Jambawalikar S, Vanguri R, Lignelli A, Connolly E. International Stroke Conference, 2019.

2018

  • Potential role of CNN-based algorithms in patient selection for DCIS observation trials.Mutasa S, Chang P, Karcich J, Pascual Van Sant E, Sun M, Liu M, Ha R. RSNA, 2018.
  • Utilizing deep learning to obtain preoperative measurements from radiographs in patients with femoroacetabular impingement.Mutasa S, Igbinoba Z, Rasiej M, Wong T. RSNA, 2018.
  • Convolutional neural network-based breast cancer risk stratification using a mammographic dataset.Mutasa S, Chang P, Karcich J, Pascual Van Sant E, Sun M, Liu M, Ha R. RSNA, 2018.
  • Advanced data augmentation techniques for medical deep learning applications.Mutasa S, Goel A, Varada S, Liu A, Wong T, Rasiej M. Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging (C-MIMI), 2018.
  • Automated femoral neck fracture detection and classification utilizing advanced deep learning techniques.Mutasa S, Varada S, Goel A, Wong T, Rasiej M. International Skeletal Society, 2018.
  • Predicting glioblastoma tumor recurrence vs pseudoprogression utilizing convolutional neural networks.Mutasa S, Genestine W, Zanazzi G, Delgado N, Iwamoto F, Chang P, Canoll P, Lassman A, Bruce J, Lignelli A. American Society of Neuroradiology, 2018.
  • Predicting breast cancer molecular subtype with an MRI data set.Mutasa S, Jambawalikar S, Ha R. SIIM Annual Meeting, 2018.
  • A deep learning approach to automated cerebral aneurysm detection on magnetic resonance angiograms with application to automatically predict the size of basilar tip aneurysms.Stember JN, Chang PD, Stember DM, Liu M, Marfatia S, Vanguri R, Mutasa S, Filippi R, Meyers P, Lignelli A, Jambawalikar S. American Society of Neuroradiology, 2018.
  • Augmented reality guidance for cerebral angiography.Loeb G, Sadri S, Grinshpoon A, Carroll J, Cooper C, Elvezio C, Mutasa S, Mandigo G, Lavine S, Weintraub J, Einstein A, Feiner S, Meyers P. Society of Interventional Radiology, 2018.
  • Motion tolerant super resolution reconstruction from multi-stack MRI data.Jambawalikar S, Vanguri R, Mutasa S, Liu M, Shaish H. International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2018.

2017 & earlier

  • Deep learning through convolutional neural networks using a breast MRI tumor dataset can predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy response.Karcich J, Jambawalikar S, Chang PD, Chin C, Jadeja P, Liu M, Wynn R, Mutasa S, Pascual Van Sant E, Connolly E, Ha R. RSNA, 2017.
  • Gene expression profiles in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.Rodman R, Mutasa S, Dupuis C, Spratt H, Underbrink M. Triological Society, COSM, 2013.

Exhibits

Poster presentations

9 posters.

  • Physeal stress injuries vs Salter-Harris fractures: the role of the perichondrium.Mutasa S, Huang S, Taol L, Jaramillo D. RSNA, 2020.
  • Key concepts in imaging informatics: a curriculum for radiologists.Liu A, Goel A, Marfatia S, Mutasa S. Association of University Radiologists, 2019.
  • A fully automated segmentation algorithm for the volumetric analysis of perihematomal edema in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.Ironside N, Mutasa S, Roh D, Mayer S, Chen C, Jambawalikar S, Vanguri R, Lignelli A, Connolly ES. International Stroke Conference, 2019.
  • Automated femoral neck fracture detection and classification utilizing advanced deep learning techniques.Mutasa S, Varada S, Goel A, Wong T, Rasiej M. RSNA, 2018.
  • Tracking patient movement for augmented reality assisted fluoroscopic procedures using convolutional neural networks.Mutasa S, Wu B, Loeb G, Chang P, Marfatia S, Meyers P. SIIM Annual Meeting, 2018.
  • Distinguishing atypical ductal hyperplasia from ductal carcinoma in situ: convolutional neural network-based machine learning approach using mammographic image data.Mutasa S, Jambawalikar S, Lu M, Pascual Van Sant E, Ha R. American Society of Breast Surgeons, 2018.
  • Patient selection for DCIS observation trials (COMET and LORIS): are they truly low risk?Patel G, Pascual Van Sant E, Mutasa S, Wynn R, Ha R. American Roentgen Ray Society, 2018.
  • Categorizing peripheral neuropathy utilizing deep learning.Okonkwo N, Mutasa S, Ho C. United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology, 2018.
  • Targeting molecular mechanisms for the treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.Mutasa S, Underbrink M. UTMB Medical Student Summer Research Fair, 2012.

Service & recognition

Leadership & honors

LEADERSHIP & SERVICE

  • Machine Learning Research Tools SubcommitteeSociety for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM), 2019 – present
  • Clinical Lead, Arterys AI platform integrationNewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, 2018 – 2020
  • Chief Resident, Diagnostic RadiologyColumbia University Irving Medical Center, 2017 – 2019
  • Associate Editor for RadiologyMedscape & WebMD, Medscape Consult
  • Manuscript reviewerJ Digit Imaging (2018–), Scientific Reports (2019–), Radiotherapy & Oncology (2020–)
  • Scientific session moderator“Machine Learning: MSK & Women’s Imaging,” SIIM Annual Meeting, 2018
  • NYP COVID-19 responseClinical resident in a repurposed OR ICU and portable X-ray technologist, 2020
  • Clinical volunteer, St. Vincent’s Free ClinicHealthcare for the indigent population of Galveston, TX, 2012 – 2015
  • MembershipsRSNA, ACR, ARRS, SSR, AMA, Alpha Omega Alpha

GRANTS & HONORS

  • NIH StARR R38 Award, Columbia CAPRI ProgramOne funded year of resident research on AI-based breast cancer risk models, $60k, 2019 – 2020. news
  • Columbia Herbert Irving Cancer Center Velocity GrantCo-investigator, translational research, $100k, 2019 – 2020
  • Roger A. Bauman, MD AwardBest trainee paper in imaging informatics, SIIM, 2018
  • RSNA Travel Award2018
  • American Roentgen Ray Society Scholar Grant2017
  • Thayer Award for Excellence in Teaching2016
  • Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical SocietyUTMB, 2015
  • NIH NHLBI Medical Student Research Grant2012
  • Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Education Scholarship2014