ArticleEuropean radiology2025
More than density: validating a mammographic masking prediction model in Dutch breast cancer screening.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 validate a lesion masking prediction model, Mammatus, previously developed on a North American cohort, on a larger retrospective breast cancer screening cohort from a single center in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND
methodsMammatus was applied to all digital mammography screening examinations with a unilateral invasive breast cancer that was either diagnosed at screening or within 24 months after a negative screening, called interval cancers. All mammograms were retrospectively evaluated for the visibility of malignant masses using all available imaging and clinical information. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) when using Mammatus to distinguish examinations with screen-detected cancers (assumed low masking risk) from interval cancers (assumed high masking risk) was computed. The AUC was compared to that of the original cohort and to that obtained using volumetric breast density (VBD) as a predictor. A second tghree-category ROC analysis was performed, with interval cancers that were retrospectively visible classified as intermediate lesion masking.
resultsMammatus achieved an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.66-0.73) for distinguishing between screen-detected-cancer exams (n = 635) and interval-cancer exams (n = 304). This performance did not differ from the original study (AUC = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68-0.82), p = 0.15), and outperformed VBD (AUC = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.63-0.70, p = 0.019). Mammatus was better at identifying mammograms at low risk of lesion masking (AUC = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76)) compared to those with high risk (AUC = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.74)).
conclusionMammatus performed well in predicting breast cancer-masking risk in a Dutch screening cohort. This suggests that adding information other than density facilitates the prediction of lesion masking. KEY POINTS: Question Mammographic lesion masking prediction models, such as Mammatus, require external validation in other screening programs before clinical application is possible. Findings Mammatus maintained similar performance in predicting lesion masking in a Dutch screening cohort and showed added benefit compared to VBD. Clinical relevance An externally validated lesion masking prediction model for digital mammography could potentially be used to identify screened women who could benefit from supplemental or alternative screening, with better accuracy than VBD alone.
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.