Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40960399›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2025

Influence of Mammography Acquisition Parameters on AI and Radiologist Interpretive Performance.

William Lotter, Daniel S Hippe, Thomas Oshiro, Kathryn P Lowry, Hannah S Milch, Diana L Miglioretti, Joann G Elmore, Christoph I Lee, William Hsu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

William LotterDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215.ORCID 0000-0002-9427-8833
Daniel S HippeClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Wash.ORCID 0000-0003-2427-4404
Thomas OshiroDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, Calif.ORCID 0009-0003-9530-409X
Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Wash.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-7855
Hannah S MilchDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, Calif.ORCID 0009-0009-4046-038X
Diana L MigliorettiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, Calif.ORCID 0000-0002-5547-1833
Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine, UCLA National Clinician Scholar Program, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, Calif.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wis.
William HsuDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, Calif.ORCID 0000-0002-5168-070X

Funding

Artificial Intelligence for Improved Breast Cancer Screening Accuracy: External Validation, Refinement, and Clinical TranslationR37CA240403 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CHRISTOPH I LEE · 2020 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA240403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the impact of screening mammography acquisition parameters on the interpretive performance of artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists. Materials and Methods The associations between seven mammogram acquisition parameters-mammography machine version, kilovoltage peak, x-ray exposure delivered, relative x-ray exposure, paddle size, compression force, and breast thickness-and AI and radiologist performance in interpreting two-dimensional screening mammograms acquired by a diverse health system between December 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The top 11 AI models and the ensemble model from the Digital Mammography Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods (DREAM) Challenge were assessed. The associations between each acquisition parameter and the sensitivity and specificity of the AI models and the radiologists' interpretations were separately evaluated using generalized estimating equations-based models at the examination level, adjusted for several clinical factors. Results The dataset included 28 278 screening two-dimensional mammograms from 22 626 women (mean age ± SD, 58.5 years ± 11.5; 4913 women had multiple mammograms). Of these, 324 examinations resulted in a breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year. The acquisition parameters were significantly associated with the performance of both AI and radiologists, with absolute effect sizes reaching 10% for sensitivity and 5% for specificity; however, the associations differed between AI and radiologists for several parameters. Increased exposure delivered reduced the specificity for the ensemble AI (-4.5% per 1 SD increase;

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsMammographyRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiologistsAdultAgedBreastClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAI RobustnessMammographyMedical Physics

Identifiers

PMID40960399
PMCPMC12649416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.