OBJECTIVE: To individuate a novel sex-specific index, based on waist circumference, BMI, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol, indirectly expressing visceral fat function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Visceral adiposity index (VAI) was first modeled on 315 nonobese healthy subjects. Using two multiple logistic regression models, VAI was retrospectively validated in 1,498 primary care patients in comparison to classical cardio- and cerebrovascular risk factors. RESULTS: All components of metabolic syndrome increased significantly across VAI quintiles. VAI was independently associated with both cardiovascular (odd ratio [OR] 2.45; 95% CI 1.52–3.95; P < 0.001) and cerebrovascular (1.63; 1.06–2.50; P = 0.025) events. VAI also showed significant inverse correlation with insulin sensitivity during euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp in a subgroup of patients (Rs = −0.721; P < 0.001). By contrast, no correlations were found for waist circumference and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests VAI is a valuable indicator of “visceral adipose function” and insulin sensitivity, and its increase is strongly associated with cardiometabolic risk.

This work aims to implement an automated data-driven model for breast cancer detection in mammograms to support physicians’ decision process within a breast cancer screening or detection program. The public available CBIS-DDSM and the INbreast datasets were used as sources to implement the transfer learning technique on full-field digital mammography proprietary dataset. The proprietary dataset reflects a real heterogeneous case study, consisting of 190 masses, 46 asymmetries, and 71 distortions. Several Yolo architectures were compared, including YoloV3, YoloV5, and YoloV5-Transformer. In addition, Eigen-CAM was implemented for model introspection and outputs explanation by highlighting all the suspicious regions of interest within the mammogram. The small YoloV5 model resulted in the best developed solution obtaining an mAP of 0.621 on proprietary dataset. The saliency maps computed via Eigen-CAM have proven capable solution reporting all regions of interest also on incorrect prediction scenarios. In particular, Eigen-CAM produces a substantial reduction in the incidence of false negatives, although accompanied by an increase in false positives. Despite the presence of hard-to-recognize anomalies such as asymmetries and distortions on the proprietary dataset, the trained model showed encouraging detection capabilities. The combination of Yolo predictions and the generated saliency maps represent two complementary outputs for the reduction of false negatives. Nevertheless, it is imperative to regard these outputs as qualitative tools that invariably necessitate clinical radiologic evaluation. In this view, the model represents a trusted predictive system to support cognitive and decision-making, encouraging its integration into real clinical practice.

An increasingly strong connection between artificial intelligence and medicine has enabled the development of predictive models capable of supporting physicians’ decision-making. Artificial intelligence encompasses much more than machine learning, which nevertheless is its most cited and used sub-branch in the last decade. Since most clinical problems can be modeled through machine learning classifiers, it is essential to discuss their main elements. This review aims to give primary educational insights on the most accessible and widely employed classifiers in radiology field, distinguishing between “shallow” learning (i.e., traditional machine learning) algorithms, including support vector machines, random forest and XGBoost, and “deep” learning architectures including convolutional neural networks and vision transformers. In addition, the paper outlines the key steps for classifiers training and highlights the differences between the most common algorithms and architectures. Although the choice of an algorithm depends on the task and dataset dealing with, general guidelines for classifier selection are proposed in relation to task analysis, dataset size, explainability requirements, and available computing resources. Considering the enormous interest in these innovative models and architectures, the problem of machine learning algorithms interpretability is finally discussed, providing a future perspective on trustworthy artificial intelligence.Relevance statement The growing synergy between artificial intelligence and medicine fosters predictive models aiding physicians. Machine learning classifiers, from shallow learning to deep learning, are offering crucial insights for the development of clinical decision support systems in healthcare. Explainability is a key feature of models that leads systems toward integration into clinical practice.Key points• Training a shallow classifier requires extracting disease-related features from region of interests (e.g., radiomics).• Deep classifiers implement automatic feature extraction and classification.• The classifier selection is based on data and computational resources availability, task, and explanation needs. Graphical Abstract

The basic aim of a biometric identification system is to discriminate automatically between subjects in a reliable and dependable way, according to a specific-target application. Multimodal biometric identification systems aim to fuse two or more physical or behavioral traits to provide optimal False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and False Rejection Rate (FRR), thus improving system accuracy and dependability. In this paper, an innovative multimodal biometric identification system based on iris and fingerprint traits is proposed. The paper is a state-of-the-art advancement of multibiometrics, offering an innovative perspective on features fusion. In greater detail, a frequency-based approach results in a homogeneous biometric vector, integrating iris and fingerprint data. Successively, a hamming-distance-based matching algorithm deals with the unified homogenous biometric vector. The proposed multimodal system achieves interesting results with several commonly used databases. For example, we have obtained an interesting working point with FAR = 0% and FRR = 5.71% using the entire fingerprint verification competition (FVC) 2002 DB2B database and a randomly extracted same-size subset of the BATH database. At the same time, considering the BATH database and the FVC2002 DB2A database, we have obtained a further interesting working point with FAR = 0% and FRR = 7.28% ÷ 9.7%.