ArticleBMJ open2024
Protocol for evaluating the fitness for purpose of an artificial intelligence product for radiology reporting in the BreastScreen New South Wales breast cancer screening programme.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Effect of Breast Density on Screening Performance in a Population-Based Program.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating text and visual diagnostic capabilities of large language models on questions related to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas 5Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiologist shortages threaten the sustainability of breast cancer screening programmes. Artificial intelligence (AI) products that can interpret mammograms could mitigate this risk. While previous studies have suggested this technology has accuracy comparable to radiologists most have been limited by using 'enriched' datasets and/or not considering the interaction between the algorithm and human readers. This study will address these limitations by comparing the accuracy of a workflow using AI alongside radiologists on a large consecutive cohort of examinations from a breast cancer screening programme. The study will combine the strengths of a large retrospective design with the benefit of prospective data collection. It will test this technology without risk to screening programme participants nor the need to wait for follow-up data. With a sample of 2 years of consecutive screening examinations, it is likely the largest test of this technology to date. The study will help determine whether this technology can safely be introduced into the BreastScreen New South Wales (NSW) population-based screening programme to address radiology workforce risks without compromising cancer detection rates or increasing false-positive recalls. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A retrospective, consecutive cohort of digital mammography screens from 658 207 examinations from BreastScreen NSW will be reinterpreted by the Lunit Insight MMG AI product. The cohort includes 4383 screen-detected and 1171 interval cancers. The results will be compared with radiologist single reading and the AI results will also be used to replace the second reader in a double-reading model. New adjudication reading will be performed where the AI disagrees with the first reader. Recall rates and cancer detection rates of combined AI-radiologist reading will be compared with the rates obtained at the time of screening. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from the NSW Health Population Health Services Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH02397). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. The findings of this evaluation will be provided to programme managers, governance bodies and other stakeholders in Australian breast cancer screening programmes.
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.