ArticleScientific data2025
Full Field Digital Mammography Dataset from a Population Screening Program.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Machine Learning for Mean Glandular Dose Prediction Utilizing DICOM Mammography Images.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Hybrid metaheuristic feature selection for breast cancer detection in digital mammography: a radiomics and deep learning pilot feasibility study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- A distributed fusion framework for breast cancer recurrence prediction using MapReduce.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Benchmark for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis in Mammogram Visual Question Answering.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer presents the second largest cancer risk in the world to women. Early detection of cancer has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality. Population screening programs schedule regular mammography imaging for participants, promoting early detection. Currently, such screening programs require manual reading. False-positive errors in the reading process unnecessarily leads to costly follow-up and patient anxiety. Automated methods promise to provide more efficient, consistent and effective reading. To facilitate their development, a number of datasets have been created. Such datasets can aid in learning-based development but many are not publicly available and do not draw directly from population screening programs. With the aim of specifically targeting population screening programs, we introduce NL-Breast-Screening, a dataset from a Canadian provincial screening program. The dataset consists of 5997 mammography exams, each of which has four standard views and is biopsy-confirmed. Cases where radiologists' reading was a false-positive are identified. NL-Breast-Screening is made publicly available as a new resource to promote advances in automation for population screening programs.
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.