ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Assessing the generalisation of artificial intelligence across mammography manufacturers.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten Years of Artificial Intelligence in Screening Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Implementation (Literature Published 2015-2025).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI performance varies considerably across mammography devices: a multi-site and multi-vendor retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- A National Audit of Mammography Systems Settings That May Affect the Output of Artificial Intelligence Software.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether differences between manufacturer of mammogram images effects performance of artificial intelligence tools for classifying breast density. Processed mammograms from 10,156 women were used to train and validate three deep learning algorithms using three retrospective datasets: Hologic, General Electric, Mixed (equal numbers of Hologic, General Electric and Siemens images) and tested on four independent witheld test sets (Hologic, General Electric, Mixed and Siemens). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was compared. Women aged 47-73 with normal breasts (routine recall - no cancer) and Volpara ground truth were selected from the OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database for the years 2012-2015. 95 % confidence intervals are used for significance testing in the results with a Bayesian Signed Rank test used to rank the overall performance of the models. Best single test performance is seen when a model is trained and tested on images from a single manufacturer (Hologic train/test: 0.98 and General Electric train/test: 0.97), however the same models performed significantly worse on any other manufacturer images (General Electric AUCs: 0.68 & 0.63; Hologic AUCs: 0.56 & 0.90). The model trained on the mixed dataset exhibited the best overall performance. Better performance occurs when training and test sets contain the same manufacturer distributions and better generalisation occurs when more manufacturers are included in training. Models in clinical use should be trained on data representing the different vendors of mammogram machines used across screening programs. This is clinically relevant as models will be impacted by changes and upgrades to mammogram machines in screening centres.
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.