Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18724867›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2008

Variable size computer-aided detection prompts and mammography film reader decisions.

Fiona J Gilbert, Susan M Astley, Caroline Rm Boggis, Magnus A McGee, Pamela M Griffiths, Stephen W Duffy, Olorunsola F Agbaje, Maureen Gc Gillan, Mary Wilson, Anil K Jain and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Where Your Eyes Go: How AI Output Design Impacts Reading Behavior.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Fiona J GilbertDivision of Applied Medicine, School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Lilian Sutton Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. f.j.gilbert@abdn.ac.uk
Susan M Astley
Caroline Rm Boggis
Magnus A McGee
Pamela M Griffiths
Stephen W Duffy
Olorunsola F Agbaje
Maureen Gc Gillan
Mary Wilson
Anil K Jain
Nicola Barr
Ursula M Beetles
Miriam A Griffiths
Jill Johnson
Rita M Roberts
Heather E Deans
Karen A Duncan
Geeta Iyengar
Wythenshawe Hospital · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBKnowledge Now (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) prompts on reader behaviour in a large sample of breast screening mammograms by analysing the relationship of the presence and size of prompts to the recall decision.

methodsLocal research ethics committee approval was obtained; informed consent was not required. Mammograms were obtained from women attending routine mammography at two breast screening centres in 1996. Films, previously double read, were re-read by a different reader using CAD. The study material included 315 cancer cases comprising all screen-detected cancer cases, all subsequent interval cancers and 861 normal cases randomly selected from 10,267 cases. Ground truth data were used to assess the efficacy of CAD prompting. Associations between prompt attributes and tumour features or reader recall decisions were assessed by chi-squared tests.

resultsThere was a highly significant relationship between prompting and a decision to recall for cancer cases and for a random sample of normal cases (P < 0.001). Sixty-four per cent of all cases contained at least one CAD prompt. In cancer cases, larger prompts were more likely to be recalled (P = 0.02) for masses but there was no such association for calcifications (P = 0.9). In a random sample of 861 normal cases, larger prompts were more likely to be recalled (P = 0.02) for both mass and calcification prompts. Significant associations were observed with prompting and breast density (p = 0.009) for cancer cases but not for normal cases (P = 0.05).

conclusionsFor both normal cases and cancer cases, prompted mammograms were more likely to be recalled and the prompt size was also associated with a recall decision.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsComputersDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedObserver VariationRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID18724867
PMCPMC2575546
OpenAlexW2161005974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.