ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Diagnostic capabilities of artificial intelligence as an additional reader in a breast cancer screening program.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Does Medical Artificial Intelligence Revolutionize Physician Productivity?Yonsei medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Ten Years of Artificial Intelligence in Screening Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Implementation (Literature Published 2015-2025).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI performance varies considerably across mammography devices: a multi-site and multi-vendor retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of integration strategies.European journal of radiology open · 2026Review
- AI calls the bluff: differentiating benign lesions from triple-negative breast cancer cases.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Hidden Fragilities and the Path to Resilience.Saudi medical journal · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Specialist Physicians in Breast Care Triaging: A Real-World Observational Study.European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Accessing AI mammography reports impacts patient follow-up behaviors: the unintended consequences of including AI in patient portals.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Optimizing Artificial Intelligence Thresholds for Mammographic Lesion Detection: A Retrospective Study on Diagnostic Performance and Radiologist-Artificial Intelligence Discordance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mammography-based artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and BI-RADS categorization using multi-view and multi-level convolutional neural networks.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Review
- The Future of Breast Cancer Organized Screening Program Through Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: A narrative review.Medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Radiology-Current Status and Critical Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic test accuracy of AI-assisted mammography for breast imaging: a narrative review.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.