ArticleRadiology2025
Adaptive Breast MRI Scanning Using AI.
Article in 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.
- Artificial intelligence empowered biomaterials for cancer therapy: From rational design to clinical translation.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background MRI protocols typically involve many imaging sequences and often require too much time. Purpose To simulate artificial intelligence (AI)-directed stratified scanning for screening breast MRI with various triage thresholds and evaluate its diagnostic performance against that of the full breast MRI protocol. Materials and Methods This retrospective reader study included consecutive contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI examinations performed between January 2013 and January 2019 at three regional cancer sites. In this simulation study, an in-house AI tool generated a suspicion score for subtraction maximum intensity projection images during a given MRI examination, and the score was used to determine whether to proceed with the full MRI protocol or end the examination early (abbreviated breast MRI [AB-MRI] protocol). Examinations with suspicion scores under the 50th percentile were read using both the AB-MRI protocol (ie, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI scans only) and the full MRI protocol. Diagnostic performance metrics for screening with various AI triage thresholds were compared with those for screening without AI triage. Results Of 863 women (mean age, 52 years ± 10 [SD]; 1423 MRI examinations), 51 received a cancer diagnosis within 12 months of screening. The diagnostic performance metrics for AI-directed stratified scanning that triaged 50% of examinations to AB-MRI versus full MRI protocol scanning were as follows: sensitivity, 88.2% (45 of 51; 95% CI: 79.4, 97.1) versus 86.3% (44 of 51; 95% CI: 76.8, 95.7); specificity, 80.8% (1108 of 1372; 95% CI: 78.7, 82.8) versus 81.4% (1117 of 1372; 95% CI: 79.4, 83.5); positive predictive value 3 (ie, percent of biopsies yielding cancer), 23.6% (43 of 182; 95% CI: 17.5, 29.8) versus 24.7% (42 of 170; 95% CI: 18.2, 31.2); cancer detection rate (per 1000 examinations), 31.6 (95% CI: 22.5, 40.7) versus 30.9 (95% CI: 21.9, 39.9); and interval cancer rate (per 1000 examinations), 4.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 7.6) versus 4.9 (95% CI: 1.3, 8.6). Specificity decreased by no more than 2.7 percentage points with AI triage. There were no AI-triaged examinations for which conducting the full MRI protocol would have resulted in additional cancer detection. Conclusion AI-directed stratified MRI decreased simulated scan times while maintaining diagnostic performance. © RSNA, 2025
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.