Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35876790›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2022

Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.

Constance D Lehman, Sarah Mercaldo, Leslie R Lamb, Tari A King, Leif W Ellisen, Michelle Specht, Rulla M Tamimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cross-Device Adaptation of Mirai for Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Constance D LehmanMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5839-6675
Sarah MercaldoMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Leslie R LambMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Tari A KingHarvard Medical School, Surgery, Boston, MA, USA.
Leif W EllisenMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Michelle SpechtMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Rulla M TamimiWeill Cornell Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health Sciences, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2306-8668

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening.

methodsWe collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.

resultsCancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P < .001).

conclusionsA deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDeep LearningEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID35876790
PMCPMC9552206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.