Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38362558›Full record

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.

Mikael Eriksson, Marta Román, Axel Gräwingholt, Xavier Castells, Andrea Nitrosi, Pierpaolo Pattacini, Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner, Paolo G Rossi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Artificial intelligence for cancer screening and surveillance.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  16. Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 2024
    Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Mikael ErikssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marta RománIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Axel GräwingholtMammographiescreening Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany.
Xavier CastellsIMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Andrea NitrosiAzienda Unitá Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggia Emilia, Italy.
Pierpaolo PattaciniAzienda Unitá Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggia Emilia, Italy.
Sylvia Heywang-KöbrunnerReferenzzentrum Mammographie Munich, Brustdiagnostik München and FFB gGmbH, Munich, Germany.
Paolo G RossiAzienda Unitá Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggia Emilia, Italy.
Azienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITHospital Del Mar · ESUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceBreast cancerEuropeMammography screeningRisk predictionValidation

Identifiers

PMID38362558
PMCPMC10866984
OpenAlexW4389366633

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.