ArticleCancers2025
Radiologists' Perspectives on AI Integration in Mammographic Breast Cancer Screening: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Implementation of an artificial intelligence-based system for mammography in the compulsory medical insurance program: results of a 3-year study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in breast imaging, with potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce workload in mammographic breast cancer screening. However, real-world integration of AI into national screening programs remains limited, and little is known about radiologists' perspectives in Asian settings. This study aimed to explore radiologists' perceptions of AI adoption in Singapore's breast screening program, focusing on perceived benefits, barriers, and requirements for safe integration.
methodsWe conducted a mixed methods study involving a cross-sectional survey of 17 radiologists with prior experience using AI-assisted mammography, followed by semi-structured interviews with 10 radiologists across all three public healthcare clusters. The survey measured confidence in AI, attitudes toward its diagnostic role, and integration preferences. Interviews were analyzed thematically, guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework.
resultsAmong survey respondents, 64.7% recommended AI as a companion reader, though only 29.4% rated its performance as comparable to humans. Confidence was highest when AI was validated on local datasets (mean 9.3/10). Interviews highlighted AI's strengths in routine, fatigue-prone tasks, but skepticism for complex cases. Concerns included false positives, workflow inefficiencies, medico-legal accountability, and long-term costs. Radiologists emphasized the importance of national guidelines, local validation, and clear role definition to build trust.
conclusionsRadiologists support AI as an adjunct to, but not a replacement for, human readers in breast cancer screening. Adoption will require robust regulatory frameworks, seamless workflow integration, transparent validation on local data, and structured user training to ensure safe and effective implementation.
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.