ArticleHealth science reports2024
Test-set results can predict participants' development in breast-screen cancer detection: An observational cohort study.
Article in Health science reports, 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.
- Impact of Prior Mammograms on Radiologists and Radiographers' Detection of Different Breast Cancer Lesion Types.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Test-set results can predict participants' development in breast-screen cancer detection: An observational cohort study.Health science reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Test-sets are standardized assessments used to evaluate reader performance in breast screening. Understanding how test-set results affect real-world performance can help refine their use as a quality improvement tool. The aim of this study is to explore if mammographic test-set results could identify breast-screening readers who improved their cancer detection in association with test-set training. Methods: Test-set results of 41 participants were linked to their annual cancer detection rate change in two periods oriented around their first test-set participation year. Correlation tests and a multiple linear regression model investigated the relationship between each metric in the test-set results and the change in detection rates. Additionally, participants were divided based on their improvement status between the two periods, and Mann-Whitney Results: Test-set records indicated multiple significant correlations with the change in breast cancer detection rate: a moderate positive correlation with sensitivity (0.688, Conclusion: Sensitivity and specificity are the strongest test-set performance measures to predict the change in breast cancer detection in real-world breast screening settings following test-set participation.
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.