ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022
A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Machine Learning Model Based on Global Mammographic Radiomic Features Can Predict Which Normal Mammographic Cases Radiology Trainees Find Most Difficult.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Radiomic analysis of cohort-specific diagnostic errors in reading dense mammograms using artificial intelligence.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Using Radiomics-Based Machine Learning to Create Targeted Test Sets to Improve Specific Mammography Reader Cohort Performance: A Feasibility Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Reliability of radiologists' first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram.PloS one · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesProposing a machine learning model to predict readers' performances, as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and lesion sensitivity, using the readers' characteristics.
methodsData were collected from 905 radiologists and breast physicians who completed at least one case-set of 60 mammographic images containing 40 normal and 20 biopsy-proven cancer cases. Nine different case-sets were available. Using a questionnaire, we collected radiologists' demographic details, such as reading volume and years of experience. These characteristics along with a case set difficulty measure were fed into two ensemble of regression trees to predict the readers' AUCs and lesion sensitivities. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between the predicted values by the model and the actual AUC and lesion sensitivity. The usefulness of the model to categorize readers as low and high performers based on different criteria was also evaluated. The performances of the models were evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation.
resultsThe Pearson correlation coefficient between the predicted AUC and actual one was 0.60 (p < 0.001). The model's performance for differentiating the reader in the first and fourth quartile based on the AUC values was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.89). The model reached an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) for distinguishing the readers in the first quartile from the fourth one based on the lesion sensitivity.
conclusionA machine learning model can be used to categorize readers as high- or low-performing. Such model could be useful for screening programs for designing a targeted quality assurance and optimizing the double reading practice.
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.