ArticleClinical imaging2022
Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mammographic density assessment by an artificial intelligence model for breast cancer detection in BreastScreen Norway.European radiology · 2026Article
- AI-based multimodal fusion for preoperative prediction of breast microcalcifications: combining mammography and tomosynthesis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Addressing Clinical Ambiguity in Breast Density Assessment: A Hybrid Multi-View Deep Learning Framework for BI-RADS B vs. C Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of three algorithms to measure breast density on mammograms in a population-based screening cohort.European radiology · 2026Article
- The DeepJoint Algorithm: An Innovative Approach for Studying the Longitudinal Evolution of Quantitative Mammographic Density and Its Association With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Risk.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- On the transfer learning behavior of domain-specific vision-language models in screening mammography.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Article
- Long-term changes in breast density reporting after implementation of BI-RADS 5Journal of clinical imaging science · 2026Article
- Assessing mammographic density change within individuals across screening rounds using deep learning-based software.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Breast density in MRI: an AI-based quantification and relationship to assessment in mammography.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Extra Views and Concomitant Ultrasound Examinations in One Year Post Breast-Conserving Surgery Patients.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Interhospital variations in diagnostic work-up following recall at biennial screening mammography-a population-based study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Mammographic density by time and breast: a retrospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Cross-field strength and multi-vendor reliability of MagDensity for MRI-based quantitative breast density analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort.European radiology · 2025Article
- Breast cancer risk assessment and risk distribution in 3,491 Slovenian women invited for screening at the age of 50; a population-based cross-sectional study.Radiology and oncology · 2023Article
- Mammographic Breast Density Model Using Semi-Supervised Learning Reduces Inter-/Intra-Reader Variability.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDue to most states' legislation, mammographic density categorization has potentially far-reaching implications, but remains subjective based on BIRADS® guidelines. We aimed to determine 1) effect of BI-RADS® 5th edition (5th-ed) vs 4th-edition (4th-ed) guidelines on reader agreement regarding density assessment; 2) 5th-ed vs 4th-ed density distribution, and visual vs quantitative assessment agreement; 3) agreement between experienced vs less experienced readers.
methodsIn a retrospective review, six breast imaging radiologists (BIR) (23-30 years' experience) visually assessed density of 200 screening mammograms performed September 2012-January 2013 using 5th-ed guidelines. Results were compared to 2016 data of the same readers evaluating the same mammograms using 4th-ed guidelines after a training module. 5th-ed density categorization by seven junior BIR (1-5 years' experience) was compared to eight experienced BIR. Nelson et al.'s kappas (κ
resultsInter-reader weighted agreement using 5th-ed is moderately strong, 0.73 (κ
conclusionThere is persistent subjectivity of visually assessed mammographic density using 5th-ed guidelines; experience does not correlate with better inter-reader agreement.
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.