ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Impact of Prior Mammograms on Radiologists and Radiographers' Detection of Different Breast Cancer Lesion Types.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMammographic interpretation relies on the detection of suspicious abnormal changes, and reference to prior mammograms may support the detection of these changes. However, the influence of prior mammograms on the detection of different breast lesions is unclear. This paper assesses the influence of prior mammograms on the detection of different lesion types in mammograms.
methodsMammographic test sets comprising different lesion types were interpreted in two stages. In Stage 1, eight radiologists interpreted current mammograms of 72 women (normal: n = 40; cancer: n = 32) with and without access to the prior mammograms. In Stage 2, 13 radiographers interpreted another test set containing 28 mammograms (normal: n = 19; cancer: n = 9) with and without access to the prior mammograms. Radiologists and radiographers' performances in detecting different lesion types with and without prior mammograms were compared separately using a paired t-test.
resultsIn Stage 1, reference to prior mammograms did not improve sensitivity for architectural distortions (p = 0.48), calcifications (p = 0.85), discrete masses (p = 0.45), and non-specific density (p = 0.22). However, prior mammograms improved the detection of spiculated/stellate lesions (p = 0.05) and diagnostic accuracy for architectural distortions (p = 0.006) and discrete/spiculated/stellate masses (p = 0.01). Prior mammograms had no impact on lesion sensitivity (p > 0.05). In Stage 2, no differences were observed in sensitivity and lesion sensitivity when compared to without prior mammograms for all lesion types (p > 0.05), but prior mammograms improved overall diagnostic accuracy (p ≤ 0.002).
conclusionsPrior mammograms improve the detection of spiculated/stellate lesions but have no impact on the detection of other lesion types when measuring radiologists' and radiographers' performance.
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.