ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
Radiomic analysis of cohort-specific diagnostic errors in reading dense mammograms using artificial intelligence.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to investigate radiologists' interpretation errors when reading dense screening mammograms using a radiomics-based artificial intelligence approach.
methodsThirty-six radiologists from China and Australia read 60 dense mammograms. For each cohort, we identified normal areas that looked suspicious of cancer and the malignant areas containing cancers. Then radiomic features were extracted from these identified areas and random forest models were trained to recognize the areas that were most frequently linked to diagnostic errors within each cohort. The performance of the model and discriminatory power of significant radiomic features were assessed.
resultsWe found that in the Chinese cohort, the AUC values for predicting false positives were 0.864 (CC) and 0.829 (MLO), while in the Australian cohort, they were 0.652 (CC) and 0.747 (MLO). For false negatives, the AUC values in the Chinese cohort were 0.677 (CC) and 0.673 (MLO), and in the Australian cohort, they were 0.600 (CC) and 0.505 (MLO). In both cohorts, regions with higher Gabor and maximum response filter outputs were more prone to false positives, while areas with significant intensity changes and coarse textures were more likely to yield false negatives.
conclusionsThis cohort-based pipeline proves effective in identifying common errors for specific reader cohorts based on image-derived radiomic features. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that radiomics-based AI can effectively identify and predict radiologists' interpretation errors in dense mammograms, with distinct radiomic features linked to false positives and false negatives in Chinese and Australian cohorts.
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.