ArticleBJR open2022
Strengths and challenges of the artificial intelligence in the assessment of dense breasts.
Article in BJR open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Extra Views and Concomitant Ultrasound Examinations in One Year Post Breast-Conserving Surgery Patients.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- An Exploration of Discrepant Recalls Between AI and Human Readers of Malignant Lesions in Digital Mammography Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing detection of previously missed non-palpable breast carcinomas through artificial intelligence.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Improves Detection of Supplemental Screening Ultrasound-detected Breast Cancers in Mammography.Journal of breast cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: High breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer and overlapping of glandular tissue can mask lesions thus lowering mammographic sensitivity. Also, dense breasts are more vulnerable to increase recall rate and false-positive results. New generations of artificial intelligence (AI) have been introduced to the realm of mammography. We aimed to assess the strengths and challenges of adopting artificial intelligence in reading mammograms of dense breasts. Methods: This study included 6600 mammograms of dense patterns "c" and "d" and presented 4061 breast abnormalities. All the patients were subjected to full-field digital mammography, breast ultrasound, and their mammographic images were scanned by AI software (Lunit INSIGHT MMG). Results: Diagnostic indices of the sono-mammography: a sensitivity of 98.71%, a specificity of 88.04%, a positive-predictive value of 80.16%, a negative-predictive value of 99.29%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 91.5%. AI-aided mammograms presented sensitivity of 88.29%, a specificity of 96.34%, a positive-predictive value of 92.2%, a negative-predictive value of 94.4%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 94.5% in its ability to read dense mammograms. Conclusion: Dense breasts scanned with AI showed a notable reduction of mammographic misdiagnosis. Knowledge of such software challenges would enhance its application as a decision support tool to mammography in the diagnosis of cancer. Advances in knowledge: Dense breast is challenging for radiologists and renders low sensitivity mammogram. Mammogram scanned by AI could be used to overcome such limitation, enhance the discrimination between benign and malignant breast abnormalities and the early detection of breast cancer.
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.