Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39381821›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Engaging with artificial intelligence in mammography screening: Swedish breast radiologists' views on trust, information and expertise.

Charlotte Högberg, Stefan Larsson, Kristina Lång

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Charlotte HögbergDepartment of Technology and Society, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1462-6325
Stefan LarssonDepartment of Technology and Society, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Kristina LångDepartment of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Lack of trust and transparency is stressed as a challenge for clinical implementation of artificial intelligence (AI). In breast cancer screening, AI-supported reading shows promising results but more research is needed on how medical experts, which are facing the integration of AI into their work, reason about trust and information needs. From a sociotechnical information practice perspective, we add to this knowledge by a Swedish case study. This study aims to: (1) clarify Swedish breast radiologists' views on trust, information and expertise pertaining to AI in mammography screening and (2) analytically address ideas about medical professionals' critical engagement with AI and motivations for trust in AI. Method: An online survey was distributed to Swedish breast radiologists. Survey responses were analysed by descriptive statistical method, correlation analysis and qualitative content analysis. The results were used as foundation for analysing trust and information as parts of critical engagements with AI. Results: Of the Swedish breast radiologists ( Conclusions: There is a demand for enhanced information, explainability and transparency of AI-supported mammography. Further discussion and agreement are needed considering what the desired goals for trust in AI should be and how it relates to medical professionals' critical evaluation of AI-made claims in medical decision support.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencebreast cancerexpertiseinformationliteracymass screeningradiologiststransparencytrust

Identifiers

PMID39381821
PMCPMC11459539

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.