Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704111›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations.

Marthe Larsen, Camilla F Aglen, Solveig R Hoff, Håkon Lund-Hanssen, Solveig Hofvind

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Marthe LarsenSection for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Camilla F AglenSection for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Solveig R HoffDepartment of Radiology, Ålesund Hospital, Møre og Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.
Håkon Lund-HanssenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Solveig HofvindSection for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. sshh@kreftregisteret.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0178-8939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results when used on retrospective data from mammographic screening. However, few studies have explored the possible consequences of different strategies for combining AI and radiologists in screen-reading.

methodsA total of 122,969 digital screening examinations performed between 2009 and 2018 in BreastScreen Norway were retrospectively processed by an AI system, which scored the examinations from 1 to 10; 1 indicated low suspicion of malignancy and 10 high suspicion. Results were merged with information about screening outcome and used to explore consensus, recall, and cancer detection for 11 different scenarios of combining AI and radiologists.

resultsRecall was 3.2%, screen-detected cancer 0.61% and interval cancer 0.17% after independent double reading and served as reference values. In a scenario where examinations with AI scores 1-5 were considered negative and 6-10 resulted in standard independent double reading, the estimated recall was 2.6% and screen-detected cancer 0.60%. When scores 1-9 were considered negative and score 10 double read, recall was 1.2% and screen-detected cancer 0.53%. In these two scenarios, potential rates of screen-detected cancer could be up to 0.63% and 0.56%, if the interval cancers selected for consensus were detected at screening. In the former scenario, screen-reading volume would be reduced by 50%, while the latter would reduce the volume by 90%.

conclusionSeveral theoretical scenarios with AI and radiologists have the potential to reduce the volume in screen-reading without affecting cancer detection substantially. Possible influence on recall and interval cancers must be evaluated in prospective studies. KEY POINTS: • Different scenarios using artificial intelligence in combination with radiologists could reduce the screen-reading volume by 50% and result in a rate of screen-detected cancer ranging from 0.59% to 0.60%, compared to 0.61% after standard independent double reading • The use of artificial intelligence in combination with radiologists has the potential to identify negative screening examinations with high precision in mammographic screening and to reduce the rate of interval cancer.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceBreast neoplasmMammographyMass screeningWorkload

Identifiers

PMID35704111
PMCPMC9705475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.