Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40935875›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Breast cancer risk assessment for screening: a hybrid artificial intelligence approach.

Raquel Tendero, Andrés Larroza, Francisco Javier Pérez-Benito, Juan Carlos Perez-Cortes, Marta Román, Rafael Llobet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Raquel TenderoInstituto Tecnológico de la Informática, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, València, Spain.
Andrés LarrozaInstituto Tecnológico de la Informática, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, València, Spain.
Francisco Javier Pérez-BenitoInstituto Tecnológico de la Informática, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, València, Spain.
Juan Carlos Perez-CortesInstituto Tecnológico de la Informática, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, València, Spain.
Marta RománDepartment of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Research Institute), Passeig Marítim 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Rafael LlobetInstituto Tecnológico de la Informática, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, València, Spain. rllobet@dsic.upv.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8278-9740

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI17/00047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study evaluates whether integrating clinical data with mammographic features using artificial intelligence (AI) improves 2-year breast cancer risk prediction compared to using either data type alone. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective nested case-control study included 2193 women (mean age, 59 ± 5 years) screened at Hospital del Mar, Spain (2013-2020), with 418 cases (mammograms taken 2 years before diagnosis) and 1775 controls (cancer-free for ≥ 2 years). Three models were evaluated: (1) ERTpd + im, based on Extremely Randomized Trees (ERT), split into sub-models for personal data (ERTpd) and image features (ERTim); (2) an image-only model (CNN); and (3) a hybrid model (ERTpd + im + CNN). Five-fold cross-validation, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), bootstrapping for confidence intervals, and DeLong tests for paired data assessed performance. Robustness was evaluated across breast density quartiles and detection type (screen-detected vs. interval cancers).

resultsThe hybrid model achieved an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.76), significantly outperforming the CNN model (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.70-0.75; p < 0.05) and slightly surpassing ERTpd + im (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.70-0.76). Sub-models ERTpd and ERTim had AUCs of 0.59 and 0.73, respectively. The hybrid model performed consistently across breast density quartiles (p > 0.05) and better for screen-detected (AUC, 0.79) than interval cancers (AUC, 0.59; p < 0.001).

conclusionsThis study shows that integrating clinical and mammographic data with AI improves 2-year breast cancer risk prediction, outperforming single-source models. The hybrid model demonstrated higher accuracy and robustness across breast density quartiles, with better performance for screen-detected cancers. KEY POINTS: Question Current breast cancer risk models have limitations in accuracy. Can integrating clinical and mammographic data using artificial intelligence (AI) improve short-term risk prediction? Findings A hybrid model combining clinical and imaging data achieved the highest accuracy in predicting 2-year breast cancer risk, outperforming models using either data type alone. Clinical relevance Integrating clinical and mammographic data with AI improves breast cancer risk prediction. This approach enables personalized screening strategies and supports early detection. It helps identify high-risk women and optimizes the use of additional assessments within screening programs.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSpainArtificial intelligenceBreast neoplasmMammographyRisk assessmentScreening

Identifiers

PMID40935875
PMCPMC12963263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.