ArticleScientific reports2021
Validation of a new fully automated software for 2D digital mammographic breast density evaluation in predicting breast cancer risk.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten Years of Artificial Intelligence in Screening Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Implementation (Literature Published 2015-2025).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cancer screening in patients with acromegaly: a plea for a personalized approach and international registries.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2025Review
- Budget impact analysis of introducing digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Organizational impact of systemic implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary test for breast cancer screening in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Examination of fully automated mammographic density measures using LIBRA and breast cancer risk in a cohort of 21,000 non-Hispanic white women.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in breast cancer imaging: risk stratification, lesion detection and classification, treatment planning and prognosis-a narrative review.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared accuracy for breast cancer (BC) risk stratification of a new fully automated system (DenSeeMammo-DSM) for breast density (BD) assessment to a non-inferiority threshold based on radiologists' visual assessment. Pooled analysis was performed on 14,267 2D mammograms collected from women aged 48-55 years who underwent BC screening within three studies: RETomo, Florence study and PROCAS. BD was expressed through clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification. Women in BI-RADS D category had a 2.6 (95% CI 1.5-4.4) and a 3.6 (95% CI 1.4-9.3) times higher risk of incident and interval cancer, respectively, than women in the two lowest BD categories. The ability of DSM to predict risk of incident cancer was non-inferior to radiologists' visual assessment as both point estimate and lower bound of 95% CI (AUC 0.589; 95% CI 0.580-0.597) were above the predefined visual assessment threshold (AUC 0.571). AUC for interval (AUC 0.631; 95% CI 0.623-0.639) cancers was even higher. BD assessed with new fully automated method is positively associated with BC risk and is not inferior to radiologists' visual assessment. It is an even stronger marker of interval cancer, confirming an appreciable masking effect of BD that reduces mammography sensitivity.
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.