ReviewPolish journal of radiology2025
Artificial intelligence versus radiologists in detecting early-stage breast cancer from mammograms: a meta-analysis of paradigm shifts.
Review in Polish journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the radiologic diagnosis of major urological cancers: a meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- How Does Medical Artificial Intelligence Revolutionize Physician Productivity?Yonsei medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- PatchSight-ImmuneMap-LifeSpan as a unified AI framework for breast cancer diagnosis, immune profiling and prognostic prediction.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Distinct visual biases affect humans and artificial intelligence in medical imaging diagnoses.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Deep learning-based classification of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications in mammography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Vertebral Metastasis With Syringomyelia Secondary to Breast Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- The evolution of digital surgery and the role of the surgeon.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in modern clinical practice (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Early detection of breast cancer is crucial for improving patient outcomes. With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), there is growing interest in its potential to assist radiologists in interpreting mammograms for early cancer detection. AI algorithms offer the promise of increased accuracy and efficiency in identifying subtle signs of breast cancer, potentially complementing the expertise of radiologists and enhancing the screening process for early-stage breast cancer detection. Material and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and select original research reports on breast cancer diagnosis by artificial intelligence versus conventional radiologists in using mammograms in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were analysed with Review Manager version 5.4. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 studies with data from a total of 120,950 patients. Regarding the sensitivity of AI, the pooled analysis of 6 studies with sensitivities ranging from 0.70 to 0.89 yielded a sensitivity of 0.85. However, the sensitivity of the radiologists ranged from 0.63 to 0.85, with an overall sensitivity of 0.77. As for specificity, both radiologists and AI groups had closer results. Conclusions: The comparison between AI systems and radiologists in detecting early-stage breast cancer from mammograms highlights the potential of AI as a valuable tool in breast cancer screening. While AI algorithms have shown promising results in terms of accuracy and efficiency, they should be viewed as complementary to radiologists rather than replacements.
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.