ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Potential Time and Recall Benefits for Adaptive AI-Based Breast Cancer MRI Screening.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 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.
- Abbreviated MRI Protocols in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Potential Time and Recall Benefits for Adaptive AI-Based Breast Cancer MRI Screening.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
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
backgroundAbbreviated breast MRI protocols are advocated for breast screening as they limit acquisition duration and increase resource availability. However, radiologists' specificity may be slightly lowered when only such short protocols are evaluated. An adaptive approach, where a full protocol is performed only when abnormalities are detected by artificial intelligence (AI)-based models in the abbreviated protocol, might improve and speed up MRI screening. This study explores the potential benefits of such an approach. PURPOSE: To assess the potential impact of adaptive breast MRI scanning based on AI detection of malignancies. STUDY TYPE: Mathematical model. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Breast cancer screening protocols. ASSESSMENT: Theoretical upper and lower limits on expected protocol duration and recall rate were determined for the adaptive approach, and the influence of the AI model and radiologists' performance metrics on these limits was assessed, under the assumption that any finding on the abbreviated protocol would, in an ideal follow-up scenario, prompt a second MRI with the full protocol. STATISTICAL TESTS: Estimated most likely scenario.
resultsTheoretical limits for the proposed adaptive AI-based MRI breast cancer screening showed that the recall rates of the abbreviated and full screening protocols always constrained the recall rate. These abbreviated and full protocols did not fully constrain the expected protocol duration, and an adaptive protocol's expected duration could thus be shorter than the abbreviated protocol duration. Specificity, either from AI models or radiologists, has the largest effect on the theoretical limits. In the most likely scenario, the adaptive protocol achieved an expected protocol duration reduction of ~47%-60% compared with the full protocol. DATA
conclusionThe proposed adaptive approach may offer a reduction in expected protocol duration compared with the use of the full protocol alone, and a lower recall rate relative to an abbreviated-only approach could be achieved. Optimal performance was observed when AI models emulated radiologists' decision-making behavior, rather than focusing solely on near-perfect malignancy detection. EVIDENCE LEVEL: Not applicable. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.
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.