ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024
The role of an artificial intelligence software in clinical senology: a mammography multi-reader study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep Learning Algorithms Versus Radiologists in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Medical machine learning operations: a framework to facilitate clinical AI development and deployment in radiology.European radiology · 2025Review
- How Could Artificial Intelligence Change the Doctor-Patient Relationship? A Medical Ethics Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic role of a dedicated AI software in detecting anomalous breast findings on mammography and tomosynthesis images in the clinical setting, stand-alone and as aid of four readers.
methodsA total of 210 patients with complete clinical and radiologic records were retrospectively analyzed. Pathology was used as the reference standard for patients undergoing surgery or biopsy, and a 1-year follow-up was used to confirm no change in the remaining patients. The image evaluation was performed by four readers with different levels of experience (a junior and three senior breast radiologists) using a 5-point Likert scale moving from 1 (definitively no cancer) to 5 (definitively cancer). The positivity of mammograms was assessed on the presence of any breast lesion (masses, architectural distortions, asymmetries, calcifications), including malignant and benign ones. A multi-reader multi-case analysis was performed. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe stand-alone AI system achieved an accuracy of 71% (69% sensitivity and 73% specificity), which is overall lower than the value achieved by readers without AI. However, with the aid of AI, a significant increase of accuracy (p value = 0.004) and specificity (p value = 0.04) was achieved for the less experienced radiologist and a senior one.
conclusionThe use of AI software as a second reader for breast lesions assessment could play a crucial role in the clinical setting, by increasing sensitivity and specificity, especially for less experienced radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38082194What 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.