ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Retrospective evaluation of a CE-marked AI system, including 1,017,208 mammography screening examinations.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance across different versions of an artificial intelligence model for screen-reading of mammograms.European radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in cancer: applications, challenges, and future perspectives.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate the performance of a CE-marked AI system for identifying breast cancer on screening mammograms. Evidence from large retrospective studies is crucial for planning prospective studies and to further ensure safe implementation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used data from screening examinations performed from 2004 to 2021 at ten breast centers in BreastScreen Norway. In the standard independent double reading setting, each radiologist scored each breast from 1 (negative) to 5 (high probability of cancer). The AI system assigned each examination an NT and an SN score; the NT score aimed to classify examinations as negative with minimal misclassification while the SN score aimed to classify examinations as positive with high confidence. N70 was defined as being among the 70% with the lowest NT score and P3 was defined as being among the 3% with the highest SN score.
resultsA total of 1,017,208 screening examinations were included in the study sample. At N70, 1.8% (107/5977) of the screen-detected and 34.5% (625/1812) of the interval cancers were defined as negative. Using P3 to define cases as positive, 81.5% (4871/5977) of the screen-detected and 19.0% (344/1812) of the interval cancers were defined as positive. Among the screen-detected cancers in N70, 11.2% (12/107) had an interpretation score > 2 by both radiologists.
conclusionThe AI system performed well according to identifying negative cases and cancer cases. Thus, the AI system can be used to reduce workload for the radiologists and potentially increase the sensitivity of mammography. KEY POINTS: Question Results from large mammography screening samples not used in training AI algorithms are important to consider when planning prospective studies and implementation. Findings More than 80% of the screening-detected cancers were classified as positive by AI when considering 3% of the examinations with the highest AI risk score as positive. Clinical relevance A lack of radiologists is a challenge in mammographic screening. Our findings support other studies that suggest the use of AI to reduce screen-reading workload.
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.