ArticleEuropean radiology2025
The evaluation of artificial intelligence in mammography-based breast cancer screening: Is breast-level analysis enough?
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether the diagnostic performance of a commercial artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for mammography differs between breast-level and lesion-level interpretations and to compare performance to a large population of specialised human readers. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 1200 mammograms from the NHS breast cancer screening programme using a commercial AI algorithm and assessments from 1258 trained human readers from the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening (PERFORMS) external quality assurance programme. For breasts containing pathologically confirmed malignancies, a breast and lesion-level analysis was performed. The latter considered the locations of marked regions of interest for AI and humans. The highest score per lesion was recorded. For non-malignant breasts, a breast-level analysis recorded the highest score per breast. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the developer's recommended threshold for recall. The study was designed to detect a medium-sized effect (odds ratio 3.5 or 0.29) for sensitivity.
resultsThe test set contained 882 non-malignant (73%) and 318 malignant breasts (27%), with 328 cancer lesions. The AI AUC was 0.942 at breast level and 0.929 at lesion level (difference -0.013, p < 0.01). The mean human AUC was 0.878 at breast level and 0.851 at lesion level (difference -0.027, p < 0.01). AI outperformed human readers at the breast and lesion level (ps < 0.01, respectively) according to the AUC.
conclusionAI's diagnostic performance significantly decreased at the lesion level, indicating reduced accuracy in localising malignancies. However, its overall performance exceeded that of human readers. KEY POINTS: Question AI often recalls mammography cases not recalled by humans; to understand why, we as humans must consider the regions of interest it has marked as cancerous. Findings Evaluations of AI typically occur at the breast level, but performance decreases when AI is evaluated on a lesion level. This also occurs for humans. Clinical relevance To improve human-AI collaboration, AI should be assessed at the lesion level; poor accuracy here may lead to automation bias and unnecessary patient procedures.
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.