ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Using automated software evaluation to improve the performance of breast radiographers in tomosynthesis screening.
Article in European radiology, 2024. 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.
- Automated Software Evaluation in Screening Mammography: A Scoping Review of Image Quality and Technique Assessment.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Identifying key factors in the mammography procedure for delineating the pectoral muscle using the analytic hierarchy process.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo improve breast radiographers' individual performance by using automated software to assess the correctness of breast positioning and compression in tomosynthesis screening. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective longitudinal analysis of prospective cohorts, six breast radiographers with varying experience in the field were asked to use automated software to improve their performance in breast compression and positioning. The software tool automatically analyzes craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views for their positioning quality by scoring them according to PGMI classifications (perfect, good, moderate, inadequate) and checking whether the compression pressure is within the target range. The positioning and compression data from the studies acquired before the start of the project were used as individual baselines, while the data obtained after the training were used to test whether conscious use of the software could help the radiographers improve their performance. The percentage of views rated perfect or good and the percentage of views in target compression were used as overall metrics to assess changes in performance.
resultsFollowing the use of the software, all radiographers significantly increased the percentage of images rated as perfect or good in both CCs and MLOs. Individual improvements ranged from 7 to 14% for CC and 10 to 16% for MLO views. Moreover, most radiographers exhibited improved compression performance in CCs, with improvements up to 16%.
conclusionActive use of a software tool to automatically assess the correctness of breast compression and positioning in breast cancer screening can improve the performance of radiographers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study suggests that the use of a software tool for automatically evaluating correctness of breast compression and positioning in breast cancer screening can improve the performance of radiographers on these metrics, which may ultimately lead to improved screening outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Proper breast positioning and compression are critical in breast cancer screening to ensure accurate diagnosis. • Active use of the software increased the quality of craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views acquired by all radiographers. • Improved performance of radiographers is expected to improve screening outcomes.
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.