Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34980622›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance breast cancer screening: protocol for population-based cohort study of cancer detection.

M Luke Marinovich, Elizabeth Wylie, William Lotter, Alison Pearce, Stacy M Carter, Helen Lund, Andrew Waddell, Jiye G Kim, Gavin F Pereira, Christoph I Lee and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modeling Radiologists' Assessments to Explore Pairing Strategies for Optimized Double Reading of Screening Mammograms.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

M Luke MarinovichCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia luke.marinovich@curtin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3801-8180
Elizabeth WylieBreastScreen WA, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
William LotterDeepHealth Inc, Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA.
Alison PearceSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5690-9542
Stacy M CarterAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2617-8694
Helen LundBreastScreen WA, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Andrew WaddellBreastScreen WA, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Jiye G KimDeepHealth Inc, Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA.
Gavin F PereiraCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sophia ZackrissonDiagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Meagan BrennanSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUBreastScreen WA · AULund University · SENorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOUniversity of Washington · USUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

Artificial Intelligence for Improved Breast Cancer Screening Accuracy: External Validation, Refinement, and Clinical TranslationR37CA240403 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CHRISTOPH I LEE · 2020 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA240403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for interpreting mammograms have the potential to improve the effectiveness of population breast cancer screening programmes if they can detect cancers, including interval cancers, without contributing substantially to overdiagnosis. Studies suggesting that AI has comparable or greater accuracy than radiologists commonly employ 'enriched' datasets in which cancer prevalence is higher than in population screening. Routine screening outcome metrics (cancer detection and recall rates) cannot be estimated from these datasets, and accuracy estimates may be subject to spectrum bias which limits generalisabilty to real-world screening. We aim to address these limitations by comparing the accuracy of AI and radiologists in a cohort of consecutive of women attending a real-world population breast cancer screening programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A retrospective, consecutive cohort of digital mammography screens from 109 000 distinct women was assembled from BreastScreen WA (BSWA), Western Australia's biennial population screening programme, from November 2016 to December 2017. The cohort includes 761 screen-detected and 235 interval cancers. Descriptive characteristics and results of radiologist double-reading will be extracted from BSWA outcomes data collection. Mammograms will be reinterpreted by a commercial AI algorithm (DeepHealth). AI accuracy will be compared with that of radiologist single-reading based on the difference in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Cancer detection and recall rates for combined AI-radiologist reading will be estimated by pairing the first radiologist read per screen with the AI algorithm, and compared with estimates for radiologist double-reading. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from the Women and Newborn Health Service Ethics Committee (EC00350) and the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2020-0316). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Results will also be disseminated to stakeholders in Australian breast cancer screening programmes and policy makers in population screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerArtificial IntelligenceAustraliaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMammographyMass ScreeningRetrospective Studiesbreast imagingbreast tumoursdiagnostic radiology

Identifiers

PMID34980622
PMCPMC8724814
OpenAlexW4205476511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.