 System (BI-RADS) breast density task and (b) the binary density task (dense, BI-RADS C+D vs. non-dense, BI-RADS A+B) without adaptation and for the (c) BI-RADS breast density task and (d) the binary density task (dense vs. non-dense) with adaptation by matrix calibration for 500 training samples. Number of test samples (exams) within each bin are shown in parentheses.[]{data-label="fig:confusion_matrices_pdi_cview"}](confusion_matrix_2class_pdi_cview_matcal500_bw "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}

With adaptation by matrix calibration with 500 Site 2 training samples, performance for the BI-RADS breast density task on the Site 2 SM dataset substantially improved (accuracy = 80%, CI: \[78%, 82%\]; $\kappa_w$ = 0.79, CI: \[0.76, 0.81\]). After adaptation, the predicted BI-RADS breast density distribution (A: 16.9%, B: 43.3%, C: 29.4%, D: 10.4%) was more similar to that of the radiologists (A: 15.3%, B: 42.2%, C: 30.2%, D: 12.3%). Less improvement was seen for the binary breast density task (accuracy = 92%, CI: \[91%, 94%\]; $\kappa$ = 0.84, CI: \[0.82, 0.87\]; AUC = 0.983, CI: \[0.978, 0.988\]).

### Impact of Dataset Size on Adaptation

The preferred adaptation method will depend on the number of training samples available for the adaptation, with more training samples benefiting methods with more parameters. Figure \[fig:adaptation\_data\_size\] shows the impact of the amount of training data on the performance of the adaptation methods, as measured by linearly weighted Cohen’s kappa and macroAUC, for both the Site 1 and Site 2 SM datasets. Each adaptation method has a range of number of samples where it offers the best performance, with the regions ordered by the corresponding number of parameters for the adaptation methods (vector calibration: 8 parameters, matrix calibration: 20, fine-tuning: 2052).
System (BI - RADS) breast density task and (b) the binary density task (dense, BI - RADS C+D vs. non - dense, BI - RADS A+B) without adaptation and for the (c) BI - RADS breast concentration undertaking and (d) the binary density task (dense vs. non - dense) with adaptation by matrix calibration for 500 education samples. issue of test samples (examination) within each bin are show in parentheses.[]{data - label="fig: confusion_matrices_pdi_cview"}](confusion_matrix_2class_pdi_cview_matcal500_bw " fig:"){width="\textwidth " } 

 With adaptation by matrix calibration with 500 Site   2 education sample, performance for the BI - RADS breast concentration task on the Site   2 SM dataset substantially better (accuracy   =   80% , CI: \[78% , 82%\ ]; $ \kappa_w$   =   0.79, CI: \[0.76, 0.81\ ]). After adaptation, the predicted BI - RADS breast density distribution (A:   16.9% , B:   43.3% , C:   29.4% , vitamin d:   10.4 %) was more similar to that of the radiologists (A:   15.3% , bel:   42.2% , C:   30.2% , D:   12.3 %). Less improvement was seen for the binary breast density task (accuracy   =   92% , CI: \[91% , 94%\ ]; $ \kappa$   =   0.84, CI: \[0.82,   0.87\ ]; AUC   =   0.983, CI: \[0.978,   0.988\ ]). 

 # # # impingement of Dataset Size on Adaptation 

 The preferred adaptation method will depend on the number of training sample available for the adaptation, with more training samples benefiting methods with more parameters. Figure   \[fig: adaptation\_data\_size\ ] shows the impact of the amount of training data on the performance of the adaptation methods, as measured by linearly weighted Cohen ’s kappa and macroAUC, for both the Site   1 and Site   2 SM datasets. Each adaptation method acting have a range of issue of sample where it offers the best performance, with the area ordain by the corresponding number of argument for the adaptation methods (vector calibration: 8 parameters, matrix calibration: 20, fine - tuning: 2052).
 Sydtem (BI-RADS) breast densiuy task and (b) the binary densify task (aense, BI-RADS C+D vs. non-dense, UI-RAES A+B) without adaptation ana for the (c) BI-RADW brtast density task and (d) tmz binzvy deusmty task (dense ys. non-dense) with adaptatimn bv matrix calibration for 500 training swmples. Mulber of test swmplts (qxama) within each bin are shown in parsnthesev.[]{data-label="fig:vonfusion_matrices_pdi_cview"}](clnfudion_matrix_2class_pdi_fview_matcal500_vw "fyt:"){width="\textwiath"}

With adaptation by jatrix calibration with 500 Site 2 tfainiug samples, kzefogkance for tie BI-RWDS breast dcmsity dask on the Site 2 SM dstavet substantially improvxd (accuracy = 80%, CI: \[78%, 82%\]; $\kapka_w$ = 0.79, CI: \[0.76, 0.81\]). Axtzr adaptation, the preeixted TI-RAGS bfwasg dtnsmty distrlbuvion (A: 16.9%, B: 43.3%, C: 29.4%, S: 10.4%) was more wimilar to that of uhe gsdiologists (Z: 15.3%, B: 42.2%, C: 30.2%, Q: 12.3%). Jess improvement was seen for the binarj brsast density task (accurqcy = 92%, CI: \[91%, 94%\]; $\kappa$ = 0.84, CI: \[0.82, 0.87\]; AUF = 0.983, CI: \[0.978, 0.988\]).

### Impwct of Dataset Size on Adaptation

The preferred addptatmov mttmja wlll depend on the number of training samples wbaolsble for the abaptation, with mprf ytaining sampler beneyjtjng methods with mlre parwmetees. Figure \[sig:acaptation\_data\_size\] shows the impact of tke qmount of training data on thz perfprmanve of the adaptation mechods, zs measured by lineaduy weighted Cohev’s la[pa and macroAUC, for both ehe Site 1 end Snte 2 SM dxtasgts. Eacr adaptatiln mebvod has a range of numbgr of vamples whfre it offers the best performaire, with the rggimns ordered by tme correspondind number of patameters yor thd adaptatikn methmds (vector salibration: 8 [wrameters, mavrix califratuon: 20, fine-tuvkng: 2052).
System (BI-RADS) breast density task and (b) density (dense, BI-RADS vs. non-dense, BI-RADS the BI-RADS breast density and (d) the density task (dense vs. non-dense) with by matrix calibration for 500 training samples. Number of test samples (exams) within bin are shown in parentheses.[]{data-label="fig:confusion_matrices_pdi_cview"}](confusion_matrix_2class_pdi_cview_matcal500_bw "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} With adaptation by matrix calibration with 500 2 samples, for BI-RADS breast density task on the Site 2 SM dataset substantially improved (accuracy = 80%, CI: 82%\]; $\kappa_w$ = 0.79, CI: \[0.76, 0.81\]). After the predicted BI-RADS breast distribution (A: 16.9%, B: 43.3%, 29.4%, 10.4%) was similar that the radiologists (A: B: 42.2%, C: 30.2%, D: 12.3%). Less improvement was seen for the binary breast density task (accuracy 92%, CI: $\kappa$ = CI: 0.87\]; = 0.983, CI: ### Impact of Dataset Size on adaptation method will depend on the number of samples available the adaptation, with more training samples methods with more parameters. Figure \[fig:adaptation\_data\_size\] shows the of the amount of training data on the performance of the adaptation methods, as measured weighted Cohen’s kappa and for both the 1 Site SM Each adaptation has a range of number of samples where it offers the performance, with the regions ordered by the corresponding number of the methods (vector calibration: parameters, matrix calibration: 20, 2052).
 System (BI-RADS) breast density Task and (b) thE binaRy dEnsItY tasK (denSe, BI-RADS C+D vs. noN-DensE, BI-RADS A+B) without adaptaTion aNd FOr thE (C) Bi-RADS Breast dENsITY taSk AnD (d) tHe BInAry deNsiTy task (dEnse vs. non-dEnsE) wIth adaptatioN By Matrix caliBraTion for 500 trainIng SampleS. NUmbER of teSt sAmpleS (exams) WIthin eAch bin are ShOWn in paREntheseS.[]{DAtA-labEl="fig:confusion_matRIcES_pdi_cview"}](confuSion_maTrIX_2cLASs_pDi_cView_matcal500_Bw "Fig:"){wiDTh="\textwIDtH"}

wITh aDAptation by matRix calibratIOn wIth 500 SitE 2 tRaiNIng samPles, pErFOrmAnce for the Bi-RADs breast deNsity tASk on the sIte 2 SM daTaset sUbsTanTialLY iMpRovEd (ACcuRAcY = 80%, CI: \[78%, 82%\]; $\KAppA_w$ = 0.79, CI: \[0.76, 0.81\]). AfteR aDaPtatiOn, thE PREDictEd Bi-RADs breaSt density distRibUtioN (a: 16.9%, B: 43.3%, C: 29.4%, d: 10.4%) was mOre siMilaR tO that Of the rAdiolOgIsts (A: 15.3%, B: 42.2%, C: 30.2%, D: 12.3%). Less impRoveMent was seEn fOr The BiNary bREast deNsiTy tAsk (accuRacy = 92%, CI: \[91%, 94%\]; $\kAPpa$ = 0.84, cI: \[0.82, 0.87\]; auc = 0.983, cI: \[0.978, 0.988\]).

### impact of Dataset SizE oN aDaPtation

THe prefERrEd ADaptatioN mEthOd wiLL DepenD on tHE nUmber of tRaininG SaMpLes avaiLaBle for ThE adAptAtion, WIth mOre traIning samPles bENefiting methodS With more paramETeRS. fiGUre \[fIg:aDaptation\_daTa\_siZE\] shoWs thE ImPacT Of the AmounT oF TrAIning data on the perfoRmAnce of The adAptation methoDs, as measurED BY linearlY weiGHtED Cohen’s kappa anD macrOAUC, for botH The Site 1 aNd SitE 2 SM datasEts. Each adAPTation meThoD haS a rAngE OF nUmber of sampleS WHere It Offers tHe bEst perfOrmAncE, wiTh tHe Regions orDered by tHe CoRrEsPonDing nUMber of paRaMetErS foR the aDAptatiOn metHods (VeCtOR caLibratiON: 8 pARAmetErS, mAtriX caLiBratiOn: 20, fiNE-tuNing: 2052).
 System (BI-RADS) breast d ensity tas k and  (b ) t he  bin arydensity task ( d ense , BI-RADS C+D vs. non- dense ,B I-RA D SA+B)without ad a p tat io nand  f o rthe ( c)BI-RADS  breast de nsi ty  task and (d )  t he binaryden sity task (d ens e vs.no n-d e nse)wit h ada ptatio n  by ma trix cali br a tion f o r 500 t r a in ingsamples. Number o f  t e st samples (ex ams) w it h in e ach  bi n are show nin pa r enthese s .[ ] { d ata - label="fig:co nfusion_mat r ice s_pdi_ cv iew " }](con fusio n_ m atr ix_2class_p di_c view_matc al500_ b w "fig: " ){width ="\tex twi dth "}
W it hada pt a tio n  b y m a tri x calibr at io n wit h 50 0 S i te 2  tr aini ng sa mples, perfor man ce f o r t he BI -RADS  bre as t den sity t ask o nthe Site 2 SM d atas et substa nti al lyim prove d  (accu rac y =  80%, C I: \[78 % , 8 2% \ ] ;  $ \kappa_w$ = 0.79,CI : \[ 0.76, 0. 81\]). Af te r  adaptat io n,thep r edict ed B I -R ADS brea st den s it ydistrib ut ion (A :16. 9%,  B: 4 3 .3%,  C: 29 .4%, D:10.4% )  was more simi l ar to that of th e ra d iolo gis ts (A: 15.3 %, B :  42. 2%,C :30. 2 %, D:  12.3 %) .  L e ss improvement wasse en for  thebinary breast  density t a s k  (accura cy = 92 % , CI: \[91%, 9 4%\];  $\kappa$=  0.84, C I: \[ 0.82, 0. 87\]; AUC =  0.983,CI:  \[ 0.9 78, 0 .9 88\]).

### I m p actof  Datase t S ize onAda pta tio n
Th e preferr ed adapt at io nme tho d wil l  dependon  th enum ber o f  train ing s ampl es  a v ail able fo r  t h e  ada pt at ion,  wi th  more  tra i nin g sampl es benefi tin g  met ho ds  with m ore parameter s.  Figure \[ fi g:a daptat i o n\_data\ _size\] shows the impac t  of the  am ountof t raining d ata  on th e p e rforma nce of  thead apt a t ion m e t ho ds,  a s measured b y l inear ly  wei ghted C ohen’s kappa and m a cro AUC, for both  th e Si t e  1  an d  S i te2S M d a t asets. Each ada ptation me th o dhas a rang e  of  n umber o f sampl es wh e re it o ffers the  best per fo rman c e , w ith the re gions or dered byt he co r re spond ing  numbe rofparam etersf orthe a daptat io n meth ods ( ve ctor cal ibration: 8 parameters,  matri x cal ibr ation: 20 , f i ne- tuning: 2 052) .
 System_(BI-RADS) breast_density task and (b)_the binary_density_task (dense,_BI-RADS_C+D vs. non-dense,_BI-RADS A+B) without_adaptation and for the_(c) BI-RADS breast_density_task and (d) the binary density task (dense vs. non-dense) with adaptation by matrix_calibration_for 500_training_samples._Number of test samples (exams)_within each bin are shown_in parentheses.[]{data-label="fig:confusion_matrices_pdi_cview"}](confusion_matrix_2class_pdi_cview_matcal500_bw_"fig:"){width="\textwidth"}

With adaptation by matrix calibration with 500 Site 2_training_samples, performance for_the BI-RADS breast density task on the Site 2 SM_dataset substantially improved (accuracy = 80%, CI: \[78%,_82%\]; $\kappa_w$ = 0.79, CI:_\[0.76,_0.81\])._After adaptation, the predicted_BI-RADS breast density distribution (A: 16.9%, B: 43.3%,_C: 29.4%, D: 10.4%) was more similar to_that of the radiologists (A: 15.3%, B: 42.2%, C: 30.2%,_D: 12.3%). Less improvement was seen for_the binary breast density task_(accuracy = 92%, CI:_\[91%, 94%\]; $\kappa$ = 0.84, CI: \[0.82, 0.87\];_AUC = 0.983, CI: \[0.978, 0.988\]).

###_Impact of_Dataset Size on_Adaptation

The preferred adaptation method will depend_on the number_of training samples available for the_adaptation,_with more training_samples_benefiting_methods with_more parameters. Figure \[fig:adaptation\_data\_size\]_shows_the impact_of_the amount of training data on_the_performance of the adaptation methods, as measured_by linearly weighted Cohen’s_kappa_and macroAUC, for both_the Site 1 and Site 2 SM_datasets. Each adaptation method has a_range of_number of_samples where it offers the best performance, with the regions ordered_by the corresponding number of parameters_for the adaptation methods_(vector calibration:_8_parameters, matrix calibration:_20,_fine-tuning: 2052).