ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Traditional versus modern approaches to screening mammography: a comparison of computer-assisted detection for synthetic 2D mammography versus an artificial intelligence algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tomosynthesis and Synthesized-2D Breast AI Outputs in a Biopsy-Referred Cohort: A Diagnostic Study of Agreement and Incremental Decision-Support Value.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing breast cancer detection with AI for early diagnosis and recurrence prediction.Oncoscience · 2026Review
- Advancements in artificial intelligence for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction: current applications and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Performance of an Artificial Intelligence Support System on Screening Mammography Cases Proceeding to Stereotactic Biopsy.Cancers · 2025Article
- Deep Learning with Transfer Learning on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Radiomics-Based Model for Predicting Breast Cancer Risk.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraditional computer-assisted detection (CADe) algorithms were developed for 2D mammography, while modern artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can be applied to 2D mammography and/or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The objective is to compare the performance of a traditional machine learning CADe algorithm for synthetic 2D mammography to a deep learning-based AI algorithm for DBT on the same mammograms.
methodsMammographic examinations from 764 patients (mean age 58 years ± 11) with 106 biopsy-proven cancers and 658 cancer-negative cases were analyzed by a CADe algorithm (ImageChecker v10.0, Hologic, Inc.) and an AI algorithm (Genius AI Detection v2.0, Hologic, Inc.). Synthetic 2D images were used for CADe analysis, and DBT images were used for AI analysis. For each algorithm, an overall case score was defined as the highest score of all lesion marks, which was used to determine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsThe overall AUC was higher for 3D AI than 2D CADe (0.873 versus 0.693, P < 0.001). Lesion-specific sensitivity of 3D AI was higher than 2D CADe (94.3 versus 72.6%, P = 0.002). Specificity of 3D AI was higher than 2D CADe (54.3 versus 16.7%, P < 0.001), and the rate of false marks on non-cancer cases was lower for 3D AI than 2D CADe (0.91 versus 3.24 per exam, P < 0.001).
conclusionA deep learning-based AI algorithm applied to DBT images significantly outperformed a traditional machine learning CADe algorithm applied to synthetic 2D mammographic images, with regard to AUC, sensitivity, and specificity.
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.