ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024
European validation of an image-derived AI-based short-term risk model for individualized breast cancer screening-a nested case-control study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence for risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a systematic review of evidence, clinical integration, and ethical implications in risk assessment tools.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Current state of mammography-based artificial intelligence for future breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Performance of Mammogram-Based AI Risk Model in Predicting Subsequent Breast Cancer in Women with a Prior History of Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Blood DNA methylation and breast cancer risk: a prospective nested case-control study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Performance of breast cancer risk prediction algorithms across mammography systems in the UK screening programme.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Retrospective evaluation of interval breast cancer screening mammograms by radiologists and AI.European radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Personalization in Breast Cancer Screening: From Population Models to Individualized Protocols.Cancers · 2025Review
- AI-driven preclinical disease risk assessment using imaging in UK biobank.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for interval breast cancer: insights from a decade of a mammography screening program.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Psychometric Validation of the Bangla Version of the Breast Cancer Fear Scale Among Female University Students in Bangladesh.International journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- [The possible benefit of artificial intelligence in an organized population-related screening program : Initial results and perspective].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence for cancer screening and surveillance.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Opportunities come with landmines.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 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 at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Image-derived artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models for breast cancer have shown high discriminatory performances compared with clinical risk models based on family history and lifestyle factors. However, little is known about their generalizability across European screening settings. We therefore investigated the discriminatory performances of an AI-based risk model in European screening settings. Methods: Using four European screening populations in three countries (Italy, Spain, Germany) screened between 2009 and 2020 for women aged 45-69, we performed a nested case-control study to assess the predictive performance of an AI-based risk model. In total, 739 women with incident breast cancers were included together with 7812 controls matched on year of study-entry. Mammographic features (density, microcalcifications, masses, left-right breast asymmetries of these features) were extracted using AI from negative digital mammograms at study-entry. Two-year absolute risks of breast cancer were predicted and assessed after two years of follow-up. Adjusted risk stratification performance metrics were reported per clinical guidelines. Findings: The overall adjusted Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (aAUC) of the AI risk model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.75) for breast cancers developed in four screening populations. In the 6.2% [529/8551] of women at high risk using the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines thresholds, cancers were more likely diagnosed after 2 years follow-up, risk-ratio (RR) 6.7 (95% CI 5.6-8.0), compared with the 69% [5907/8551] of women classified at general risk by the model. Similar risk-ratios were observed across levels of mammographic density. Interpretation: The AI risk model showed generalizable discriminatory performances across European populations and, predicted ∼30% of clinically relevant stage 2 and higher breast cancers in ∼6% of high-risk women who were sent home with a negative mammogram. Similar results were seen in women with fatty and dense breasts. Funding: Swedish Research Council.
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.