ArticleRadiology2024
Patient Characteristics Impact Performance of AI Algorithm in Interpreting Negative Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Studies.
Article in Radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tomosynthesis and Synthesized-2D Breast AI Outputs in a Biopsy-Referred Cohort: A Diagnostic Study of Agreement and Incremental Decision-Support Value.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- High risk score of breast cancer by artificial intelligence (AI) on screening mammograms: a review of negative and cancer cases.European radiology · 2026Article
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction: current applications and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Connecting algorithmic fairness and fair outcomes in a sociotechnical simulation case study of AI-assisted healthcare.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Performance of an Artificial Intelligence Support System on Screening Mammography Cases Proceeding to Stereotactic Biopsy.Cancers · 2025Article
- Robust evaluation of tissue-specific radiomic features for classifying breast tissue density grades.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Radiologists' Perspectives on AI Integration in Mammographic Breast Cancer Screening: A Mixed Methods Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Selecting the Right AI Algorithm for the Job: A Guide for Navigating the AI Jungle in Ophthalmology.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Review
- Subgroup evaluation to understand performance gaps in deep learning-based classification of regions of interest on mammography.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Classification of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Clinical Data.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence and consistency in patient care: a large-scale longitudinal study of mammographic density assessment.BJR artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Levelling up as a fair solution in AI enabled cancer screening.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Patient Characteristics Impact False Positives in AI Interpretation of True-Negative Screening Breast Tomosynthesis Examinations.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Computer-Assisted Detection and Diagnosis for Mammography: An Evidence-Based Review of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-Cleared Tools for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).AI in precision oncology · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to manage radiologists' workloads. The impact of patient characteristics on AI performance has not been well studied. Purpose To understand the impact of patient characteristics (race and ethnicity, age, and breast density) on the performance of an AI algorithm interpreting negative screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study identified negative screening DBT examinations from an academic institution from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. All examinations had 2 years of follow-up without a diagnosis of atypia or breast malignancy and were therefore considered true negatives. A subset of unique patients was randomly selected to provide a broad distribution of race and ethnicity. DBT studies in this final cohort were interpreted by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm, which generated case scores (malignancy certainty) and risk scores (1-year subsequent malignancy risk) for each mammogram. Positive examinations were classified based on vendor-provided thresholds for both scores. Multivariable logistic regression was used to understand relationships between the scores and patient characteristics. Results A total of 4855 patients (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-63 years]) were included: 27% (1316 of 4855) White, 26% (1261 of 4855) Black, 28% (1351 of 4855) Asian, and 19% (927 of 4855) Hispanic patients. False-positive case scores were significantly more likely in Black patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.2, 1.8]) and less likely in Asian patients (OR = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.9]) compared with White patients, and more likely in older patients (71-80 years; OR = 1.9 [95% CI: 1.5, 2.5]) and less likely in younger patients (41-50 years; OR = 0.6 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.7]) compared with patients aged 51-60 years. False-positive risk scores were more likely in Black patients (OR = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.0]), patients aged 61-70 years (OR = 3.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 5.1]), and patients with extremely dense breasts (OR = 2.8 [95% CI: 1.3, 5.8]) compared with White patients, patients aged 51-60 years, and patients with fatty density breasts, respectively. Conclusion Patient characteristics influenced the case and risk scores of a Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm analyzing negative screening DBT examinations. © RSNA, 2024.
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.