ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Retrospective evaluation of interval breast cancer screening mammograms by radiologists and AI.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether an AI system can identify breast cancer risk in interval breast cancer (IBC) screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND
methodsIBC screening mammograms from a Swiss screening program were retrospectively analyzed by radiologists/an AI system. Radiologists determined whether the IBC mammogram showed human visible signs of breast cancer (potentially missed IBCs) or not (IBCs without retrospective abnormalities). The AI system provided a case score and a prognostic risk category per mammogram.
results119 IBC cases (mean age 57.3 (5.4)) were available with complete retrospective evaluations by radiologists/the AI system. 82 (68.9%) were classified as IBCs without retrospective abnormalities and 37 (31.1%) as potentially missed IBCs. 46.2% of all IBCs received a case score ≥ 25, 25.2% ≥ 50, and 13.4% ≥ 75. Of the 25.2% of the IBCs ≥ 50 (vs. 13.4% of a no breast cancer population), 45.2% had not been discussed during a consensus conference, reflecting 11.4% of all IBC cases. The potentially missed IBCs received significantly higher case scores and risk classifications than IBCs without retrospective abnormalities (case score mean: 54.1 vs. 23.1; high risk: 48.7% vs. 14.7%; p < 0.05). 13.4% of the IBCs without retrospective abnormalities received a case score ≥ 50, of which 62.5% had not been discussed during a consensus conference.
conclusionAn AI system can identify IBC screening mammograms with a higher risk for breast cancer, particularly in potentially missed IBCs but also in some IBCs without retrospective abnormalities where radiologists did not see anything, indicating its ability to improve mammography screening quality. KEY POINTS: Question AI presents a promising opportunity to enhance breast cancer screening in general, but evidence is missing regarding its ability to reduce interval breast cancers. Findings The AI system detected a high risk of breast cancer in most interval breast cancer screening mammograms where radiologists retrospectively detected abnormalities. Clinical relevance Utilization of an AI system in mammography screening programs can identify breast cancer risk in many interval breast cancer screening mammograms and thus potentially reduce the number of interval breast cancers.
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.