Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39380589›Full record

SynthesisRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2024

Artificial intelligence in mammography: a systematic review of the external validation.

Paulo Eduardo Souza Castelo Branco, Adriane Helena Silva Franco, Amanda Prates de Oliveira, Isabela Maurício Costa Carneiro, Luciana Maurício Costa de Carvalho, Jonathan Igor Nunes de Souza, Danniel Rodrigo Leandro, Eduardo Batista Cândido

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paulo Eduardo Souza Castelo BrancoFaculdade de Medicina Faculdade de Minas Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Faculdade de Minas, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8077-1187
Adriane Helena Silva FrancoFaculdade de Medicina Faculdade de Minas Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Faculdade de Minas, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0497-872X
Amanda Prates de OliveiraFaculdade de Medicina Faculdade de Minas Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Faculdade de Minas, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1094-9342
Isabela Maurício Costa CarneiroFaculdade de Medicina Faculdade de Minas Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Faculdade de Minas, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6720-1503
Luciana Maurício Costa de CarvalhoFaculdade de Medicina Faculdade de Minas Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Faculdade de Minas, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1904-9942
Jonathan Igor Nunes de SouzaFaculdade de Medicina Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri DiamantinaMG Brazil Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0401-4843
Danniel Rodrigo LeandroUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1852-9303
Eduardo Batista CândidoUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6496-6654

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of external validation studies on the use of different Artificial Intelligence algorithms in breast cancer screening with mammography. Data source: Our systematic review was conducted and reported following the PRISMA statement, using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the search terms "Artificial Intelligence," "Mammography," and their respective MeSH terms. We filtered publications from the past ten years (2014 - 2024) and in English. Study selection: A total of 1,878 articles were found in the databases used in the research. After removing duplicates (373) and excluding those that did not address our PICO question (1,475), 30 studies were included in this work. Data collection: The data from the studies were collected independently by five authors, and it was subsequently synthesized based on sample data, location, year, and their main results in terms of AUC, sensitivity, and specificity. Data synthesis: It was demonstrated that the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) and sensitivity were similar to those of radiologists when using independent Artificial Intelligence. When used in conjunction with radiologists, statistically higher accuracy in mammogram evaluation was reported compared to the assessment by radiologists alone. Conclusion: AI algorithms have emerged as a means to complement and enhance the performance and accuracy of radiologists. They also assist less experienced professionals in detecting possible lesions. Furthermore, this tool can be used to complement and improve the analyses conducted by medical professionals.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsMammographyAlgorithmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansSensitivity and SpecificityValidation Studies as TopicArtificial IntelligenceBreast neoplasmsDeep learningMachine learningMammography

Identifiers

PMID39380589
PMCPMC11460423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.