ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Application of a Commercial Artificial Intelligence Software in Unilateral Mammography: Simulating Total Mastectomy Scenarios.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
This study was to evaluate the performance of commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) software in unilateral mammograms simulating postmastectomy surveillance compared with AI software used in bilateral mammograms from the same women serving as controls. A retrospective database search identified consecutive women who underwent breast cancer surgery between January 2021 and December 2021. AI software was applied to the mammogram immediately preceding breast cancer diagnosis in two modes: bilateral (the standard bilateral mammography dataset) and unilateral analyses (each breast's craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views), and their outputs were reviewed. The sensitivity, specificity, and number of marks per breast were compared between the bilateral and unilateral analyses with -5% non-inferiority margin for the difference in sensitivity and specificity between the two modes. A total of 694 women (mean age, 55.2 ± 10.8 years) with unilateral or bilateral breast cancer contributed mammograms for analysis; each breast was then separately evaluated in the unilateral postmastectomy simulation (n = 1388), of which 730 had breast cancer (52.6%) (mean invasive size = 1.5 cm) and compared with bilateral mammography analysis. The sensitivity of unilateral analysis was not inferior to that of bilateral analysis (78.6% vs. 76.7%), with a difference of 1.9%. The specificity of unilateral analysis was inferior to that in the bilateral analysis (81.5% vs. 91.9%), with a difference of -10.5% being lower than the non-inferiority margin. The average number of AI marks per breast was 0.94 (unilateral [1298/1388] and bilateral analyses [1306/1388], respectively). AI software performance in simulated unilateral mammography analysis demonstrated non-inferior sensitivity and inferior specificity compared to bilateral mammography.
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.