ArticleKorean journal of radiology2019
Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interobserver variability of recall decisions between mammography readers in the English NHS breast screening programme: A comparison of interobserver variability measures.European journal of radiology · 2026Article
- LENS: A mammography-specific hybrid CNN-Transformer with lesion-aware evidence modeling.PloS one · 2026Article
- AI-CAD-Guided Mammographic Assessment of Tumor Size and T Stage: Concordance with MRI for Clinical Staging in Breast Cancer Patients Considered for NAC.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Personalized Medicine.Journal of breast cancer · 2023Review
- Comparison of Diagnostic Performance in Mammography Assessment: Radiologist with Reference to Clinical Information Versus Standalone Artificial Intelligence Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence for Reducing Unnecessary Recalls at Screening Mammography: A Simulation Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Breast Dense Tissue Segmentation with Noisy Labels: A Hybrid Threshold-Based and Mask-Based Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Mammography self-evaluation online test for screening readers: an Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) initiative.European radiology · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- More than interobserver agreement is required for comparisons of categorization systems.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the interpretive performance and inter-observer agreement on digital mammographs among radiologists and to investigate whether radiologist characteristics affect performance and agreement. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe test sets consisted of full-field digital mammograms and contained 12 cancer cases among 1000 total cases. Twelve radiologists independently interpreted all mammograms. Performance indicators included the recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Inter-radiologist agreement was measured. The reporting radiologist characteristics included number of years of experience interpreting mammography, fellowship training in breast imaging, and annual volume of mammography interpretation.
resultsThe mean and range of interpretive performance were as follows: recall rate, 7.5% (3.3-10.2%); CDR, 10.6 (8.0-12.0 per 1000 examinations); PPV, 15.9% (8.8-33.3%); sensitivity, 88.2% (66.7-100%); specificity, 93.5% (90.6-97.8%); FPR, 6.5% (2.2-9.4%); and AUC, 0.93 (0.82-0.99). Radiologists who annually interpreted more than 3000 screening mammograms tended to exhibit higher CDRs and sensitivities than those who interpreted fewer than 3000 mammograms (
conclusionThe interpretative performance of the radiologists fulfilled the mammography screening goal of the American College of Radiology, although there was inter-observer variability. Radiologists who interpreted more than 3000 screening mammograms annually tended to perform better than radiologists who did not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.