Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31927164›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020

Stand-alone artificial intelligence - The future of breast cancer screening?

Ioannis Sechopoulos, Ritse M Mann

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Ioannis SechopoulosDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: ioannis.sechopoulos@radboudumc.nl.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: ritse.mann@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although computers have had a role in interpretation of mammograms for at least two decades, their impact on performance has not lived up to expectations. However, in the last five years, the field of medical image analysis has undergone a revolution due to the introduction of deep learning convolutional neural networks - a form of artificial intelligence (AI). Because of their considerably higher performance compared to conventional computer aided detection methods, these AI algorithms have resulted in renewed interest in their potential for interpreting breast images in stand-alone mode. For this, first the actual capability of the algorithms, compared to breast radiologists, needs to be well understood. Although early studies have pointed to the comparable performance between AI systems and breast radiologists in interpreting mammograms, these comparisons have been performed in laboratory conditions with limited, enriched datasets. AI algorithms with performance comparable to breast radiologists could be used in a number of different ways, the most impactful being pre-selection, or triaging, of normal screening mammograms that would not need human interpretation. Initial studies evaluating this proposed use have shown very promising results, with the resulting accuracy of the complete screening process not being affected, but with a significant reduction in workload. There is a need to perform additional studies, especially prospective ones, with large screening data sets, to both gauge the actual stand-alone performance of these new algorithms, and the impact of the different implementation possibilities on screening programs.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleForecastingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMammographyArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID31927164
PMCPMC7375643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.