ArticleRadiology2025
AI to Reduce the Interval Cancer Rate of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Article in Radiology, 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.
- Missed and true interval cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammograms: radiologists' assessment and artificial intelligence markings.Acta radiologica open · 2026Article
- Clinically Meaningful AI Detection of Interval Breast Cancer at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.Radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Given the lack of long-term outcome data for screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), the interval cancer rate is a commonly used surrogate for patient outcomes. Purpose To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm in detecting and localizing interval cancers at screening DBT and to validate the diagnostic threshold of the algorithm by analyzing its performance across interval, true-positive, true-negative, and false-positive screening DBT examinations. Materials and Methods Screening DBT examinations performed immediately before confirmed interval cancer diagnoses between February 2011 and June 2023 at an academic institution were retrospectively analyzed by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-cleared AI algorithm. Lesions marked by AI on DBT sections were assigned a score from 0 to 100, with the examination-level score reflecting the highest lesion score. AI-positive examinations (score ≥10) were independently reviewed by two breast imaging radiologists to determine whether AI annotations corresponded to the site of the subsequent cancer. Imaging and clinicopathologic features were compared between interval cancers detected and not detected by AI using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and Fisher exact test. Using the same threshold score, 1000 true-positive, true-negative, and false-positive screening DBT examinations were also analyzed by AI. Results Among 224 interval cancers in 224 women (mean age, 61 years ± 14 [SD]), AI correctly localized 32.6% (73 of 224) of the cancers at retrospective evaluation of the screening DBT examinations. Features associated with interval cancers detected by AI (versus not detected) included larger size at surgical pathology (37 vs 22 mm;
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.