ArticleKorean journal of radiology2024
Positive Predictive Values of Abnormality Scores From a Commercial Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Mammography.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-CAD for diagnostic mammography: comparison to radiologists according to different indications.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence (AI) services for Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification on mammograms.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Adding artificial intelligence case malignancy scoring to reduce screen-reading workload in breast screening program: results of the retrospective REAI program.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Application of a Commercial Artificial Intelligence Software in Unilateral Mammography: Simulating Total Mastectomy Scenarios.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- The Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging: Current Insights, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of breast cancer · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-based tumor size measurement on mammography: agreement with pathology and comparison with human readers' assessments across multiple imaging modalities.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- AI-CAD-Guided Mammographic Assessment of Tumor Size and T Stage: Concordance with MRI for Clinical Staging in Breast Cancer Patients Considered for NAC.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Optimizing Artificial Intelligence Thresholds for Mammographic Lesion Detection: A Retrospective Study on Diagnostic Performance and Radiologist-Artificial Intelligence Discordance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Performance of Digital Mammography-Based Artificial Intelligence Computer-Aided Diagnosis on Synthetic Mammography From Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Caveats in Using Abnormality/Probability Scores from Artificial Intelligence Algorithms: Neither True Probability nor Level of Trustworthiness.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) is increasingly used in mammography. While the continuous scores of AI-CAD have been related to malignancy risk, the understanding of how to interpret and apply these scores remains limited. We investigated the positive predictive values (PPVs) of the abnormality scores generated by a deep learning-based commercial AI-CAD system and analyzed them in relation to clinical and radiological findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom March 2020 to May 2022, 656 breasts from 599 women (mean age 52.6 ± 11.5 years, including 0.6% [4/599] high-risk women) who underwent mammography and received positive AI-CAD results (Lunit Insight MMG, abnormality score ≥ 10) were retrospectively included in this study. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between the AI-CAD abnormality scores and clinical and radiological factors. The breasts were subdivided according to the abnormality scores into groups 1 (10-49), 2 (50-69), 3 (70-89), and 4 (90-100) using the optimal binning method. The PPVs were calculated for all breasts and subgroups.
resultsDiagnostic indications and positive imaging findings by radiologists were associated with higher abnormality scores in the multivariable regression analysis. The overall PPV of AI-CAD was 32.5% (213/656) for all breasts, including 213 breast cancers, 129 breasts with benign biopsy results, and 314 breasts with benign outcomes in the follow-up or diagnostic studies. In the screening mammography subgroup, the PPVs were 18.6% (58/312) overall and 5.1% (12/235), 29.0% (9/31), 57.9% (11/19), and 96.3% (26/27) for score groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The PPVs were significantly higher in women with diagnostic indications (45.1% [155/344]), palpability (51.9% [149/287]), fatty breasts (61.2% [60/98]), and certain imaging findings (masses with or without calcifications and distortion).
conclusionPPV increased with increasing AI-CAD abnormality scores. The PPVs of AI-CAD satisfied the acceptable PPV range according to Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System for screening mammography and were higher for diagnostic mammography.
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.