Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38388718›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Diagnostic capabilities of artificial intelligence as an additional reader in a breast cancer screening program.

Mustafa Ege Seker, Yilmaz Onat Koyluoglu, Ayse Nilufer Ozaydin, Sibel Ozkan Gurdal, Beyza Ozcinar, Neslihan Cabioglu, Vahit Ozmen, Erkin Aribal

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa Ege SekerDepartment of Radiology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Yilmaz Onat KoyluogluDepartment of Radiology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ayse Nilufer OzaydinMarmara University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sibel Ozkan GurdalNamik Kemal University, School of Medicine, Tekirdag, Turkey.
Beyza OzcinarIstanbul University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Neslihan CabiogluIstanbul University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Vahit OzmenIstanbul University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Erkin AribalDepartment of Radiology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. earibal@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5525-8696
Istanbul University · TRKent Hastanesi · TRMarmara University · TRTekirdağ Namık Kemal University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the early-detection capabilities of AI in a screening program over its duration, with a specific focus on the detection of interval cancers, the early detection of cancers with the assistance of AI from prior visits, and its impact on workload for various reading scenarios. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study included 22,621 mammograms of 8825 women within a 10-year biennial two-reader screening program. The statistical analysis focused on 5136 mammograms from 4282 women due to data retrieval issues, among whom 105 were diagnosed with breast cancer. The AI software assigned scores from 1 to 100. Histopathology results determined the ground truth, and Youden's index was used to establish a threshold. Tumor characteristics were analyzed with ANOVA and chi-squared test, and different workflow scenarios were evaluated using bootstrapping.

resultsThe AI software achieved an AUC of 89.6% (86.1-93.2%, 95% CI). The optimal threshold was 30.44, yielding 72.38% sensitivity and 92.86% specificity. Initially, AI identified 57 screening-detected cancers (83.82%), 15 interval cancers (51.72%), and 4 missed cancers (50%). AI as a second reader could have led to earlier diagnosis in 24 patients (average 29.92 ± 19.67 months earlier). No significant differences were found in cancer-characteristics groups. A hybrid triage workflow scenario showed a potential 69.5% reduction in workload and a 30.5% increase in accuracy.

conclusionThis AI system exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in screening mammograms, effectively identifying interval and missed cancers and identifying 23% of cancers earlier in prior mammograms. Adopting AI as a triage mechanism has the potential to reduce workload by nearly 70%. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The study proposes a more efficient method for screening programs, both in terms of workload and accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Incorporating AI as a triage tool in screening workflow improves sensitivity (72.38%) and specificity (92.86%), enhancing detection rates for interval and missed cancers. • AI-assisted triaging is effective in differentiating low and high-risk cases, reduces radiologist workload, and potentially enables broader screening coverage. • AI has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis compared to human reading.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographySensitivity and SpecificityAgedFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedWorkloadArtificial intelligenceBreast cancerMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID38388718
PMCPMC11364680
OpenAlexW4392024218

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.