ArticlePloS one2025
AI-Driven quality assurance in mammography: Enhancing quality control efficiency through automated phantom image evaluation in South Korea.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a deep learning-based model for automated evaluation of mammography phantom images, with the goal of improving inter-radiologist agreement and enhancing the efficiency of quality control within South Korea's national accreditation system. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 5,917 mammography phantom images were collected from the Korea Institute for Accreditation of Medical Imaging (KIAMI). After preprocessing, 5,813 images (98.2%) met quality standards and were divided into training, test, and evaluation datasets. Each image included 16 artificial lesions (fibers, specks, masses) scored by certified radiologists. Images were preprocessed, standardized, and divided into 16 subimages. An EfficientNetV2_L-based model, selected for its balance of accuracy and computational efficiency, was used to predict both lesion existence and scoring adequacy (score of 0.0, 0.5, 1.0). Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, F1-score, area under the curve (AUC), and explainable AI techniques.
resultsThe model achieved classification accuracy of 87.84%, 93.43%, and 86.63% for fibers (F1: 0.7292, 95% bootstrap CI: 0.711, 0.747), specks (F1: 0. 7702, 95% bootstrap CI: 0.750, 0.791), and masses (F1: 0.7594, 95% bootstrap CI: 0.736, 0.781), respectively. AUCs exceeded 0.97 for 0.0-score detection and above 0.94 for 0.5-score detection. Notably, the model demonstrated strong discriminative capability in 1.0-score detection across all lesion types. Model interpretation experiments confirmed adherence to guideline criteria: fiber scoring reflected the "longest visible segment" rule; speck detection showed score transitions at two and four visible points; and mass evaluation prioritized circularity but showed some size-related bias. Saliency maps confirmed alignment with guideline-defined lesion features while ignoring irrelevant artifacts.
conclusionThe proposed deep learning model accurately assessed mammography phantom images according to guideline criteria and achieved expert-level performance. By automating the evaluation process, the model can improve scoring consistency and significantly enhance the efficiency and scalability of quality control workflows.
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.