Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326868›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2024

Are better AI algorithms for breast cancer detection also better at predicting risk? A paired case-control study.

Ruggiero Santeramo, Celeste Damiani, Jiefei Wei, Giovanni Montana, Adam R Brentnall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Ruggiero SanteramoWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse square, London, EC1M 6BQ, England, UK. ruggiero.santeramo.ai@gmail.com.
Celeste DamianiWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse square, London, EC1M 6BQ, England, UK.
Jiefei WeiDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England, UK.
Giovanni MontanaWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England, UK. g.montana@warwick.ac.uk.
Adam R BrentnallWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse square, London, EC1M 6BQ, England, UK. a.brentnall@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28396Cancer Research UK 28689Cancer Research UK C49757/A2868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) breast cancer risk evaluation tools using digital mammograms are highly informative for 1-6 years following a negative screening examination. We hypothesized that algorithms that have previously been shown to work well for cancer detection will also work well for risk assessment and that performance of algorithms for detection and risk assessment is correlated.

methodsTo evaluate our hypothesis, we designed a case-control study using paired mammograms at diagnosis and at the previous screening visit. The study included n = 3386 women from the OPTIMAM registry, that includes mammograms from women diagnosed with breast cancer in the English breast screening program 2010-2019. Cases were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ at screening and were selected if they had a mammogram available at the screening examination that led to detection, and a paired mammogram at their previous screening visit 3y prior to detection when no cancer was detected. Controls without cancer were matched 1:1 to cases based on age (year), screening site, and mammography machine type. Risk assessment was conducted using a deep-learning model designed for breast cancer risk assessment (Mirai), and three open-source deep-learning algorithms designed for breast cancer detection. Discrimination was assessed using a matched area under the curve (AUC) statistic.

resultsOverall performance using the paired mammograms followed the same order by algorithm for risk assessment (AUC range 0.59-0.67) and detection (AUC 0.81-0.89), with Mirai performing best for both. There was also a correlation in performance for risk and detection within algorithms by cancer size, with much greater accuracy for large cancers (30 mm+, detection AUC: 0.88-0.92; risk AUC: 0.64-0.74) than smaller cancers (0 to < 10 mm, detection AUC: 0.73-0.86, risk AUC: 0.54-0.64). Mirai was relatively strong for risk assessment of smaller cancers (0 to < 10 mm, risk, Mirai AUC: 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.70); other algorithms AUC 0.54-0.56).

conclusionsImprovements in risk assessment could stem from enhancing cancer detection capabilities of smaller cancers. Other state-of-the-art AI detection algorithms with high performance for smaller cancers might achieve relatively high performance for risk assessment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceCase-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyRetrospective StudiesAIBreast cancerDeep learningMedical imagingRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID38326868
PMCPMC10848404

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.