ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening - model evaluation.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Risk in 2D Mammography Screening: A Scoping Review of Modelling Strategies and Emerging AI Applications.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Lifetime Attributable Risk in Mammography Screenings in Dubai: The Influence of Breast Thickness and Age on Radiation Exposure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe
methodsThe model's accuracy was evaluated by comparing the received MGD of 317 women who had undergone a total of 733 visits across one to four rounds of screening. This was achieved by comparing the RRIMS predicted dose values with the same examination dose calculated manually by hand. Qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed to assess the percentage difference (% diff) or agreement between the two values.
resultsQualitative statistical analysis using the Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a statistically significant bias for the % diff between the manually calculated and RRIMS predicted dose values, where the mean (bias) was -2.02% with an upper and lower limit of agreement of 40.24% and -44.27%, respectively. Quantitative statistical analysis revealed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 3,1) of 0.64 (
conclusionThe results indicate a statistically significant and reasonably good level of agreement between the manually calculated ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper assesses the precision of the dose and risk model that our team has previously established. The results bring us one step closer to providing females and clinicians with a useful tool that can help explain and contextualise the benefits and risks associated with screening mammography.
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.