ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Analysis of Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Japanese Women.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Evaluating artificial intelligence-generated synthesized mammography as a standalone alternative to digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) addresses the limitations of digital mammography (DM). While DM+DBT is gradually replacing DM in the United States and other Western countries, its adoption in Japan has been limited. This study assessed and compared the diagnostic performance of DM and DM+DBT, with a novel focus on breast density, reader experience, and workflow efficiency in Japanese women who underwent examinations during our early experience shortly after the introduction of DBT. Methods A retrospective review of 48 patients (19 with breast cancer and 29 with benign lesions) who underwent both DM and DBT at Jyoban Hospital was conducted. Five readers (two physicians, one medical resident, and two radiologic technologists) assessed the images. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for breast density and reader experience in both screening and clinical settings. Inter-reader agreement and reading times were assessed, with paired t-tests used to analyze differences in reading times. Results DM+DBT achieved higher inter-reader agreement than DM (Kappa: 0.708, 95% CI: 0.567-0.849 vs. 0.661, 95% CI: 0.511-0.811), though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.653). In screening settings, DM+DBT significantly improved the area under the curve (AUC; 0.750, 95% CI: 0.717-0.784 vs. 0.709, 95% CI: 0.675-0.743; p = 0.005); in clinical settings, the increase was not significant (0.878, 95% CI: 0.834-0.921 vs. 0.844, 95% CI: 0.797-0.891; p = 0.153). For dense breasts, AUC improved notably with DBT (screening: 0.766, 95% CI: 0.699-0.833 vs. 0.684, 95% CI: 0.612-0.756; p = 0.007; clinical: 0.936, 95% CI: 0.883-0.990 vs. 0.827, 95% CI: 0.740-0.914; p = 0.023), but no significant differences were observed in non-dense breasts. All readers improved with DBT, except the medical resident. Reading times increased significantly, from 32.5-82.5 seconds (DM) to 71.3-113.8 seconds (DM+DBT) (p = 0.006). Conclusion DM+DBT improves diagnostic accuracy, particularly for dense breasts in Japanese women, but longer reading times and reader experience may limit its widespread adoption.
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.