ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Adding artificial intelligence case malignancy scoring to reduce screen-reading workload in breast screening program: results of the retrospective REAI program.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe AI case malignancy score (AI-CMS) represents the AI algorithm's confidence (from 0 to 100%) that a mammography exam is malignant. This work aims to retrospectively evaluate, through simulation on real-world data, a strategy that integrates AI-CMS into a standard screening scenario to reduce the radiologists' workload.
methodsA total of 89176 consecutive screening exams from the 2023-2024 Reggio Emilia Breast Screening Program (REBSP) were retrospectively considered, which included 479 biopsy-proven cancers (interval cancers were only partially available, therefore false negatives beyond those detected in the real screening workflow could not be assessed). In the proposed strategy, computer-aided detection (CAD) acts as a reader (CR), recalling women with an AI-CMS greater than a predefined threshold (ranging from 5 to 25%). If the first radiologist (HR1) disagrees with CR, the case goes to a second radiologist (HR2) and, in case of human disagreement, to a third radiologist (HR3). For each threshold, final recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), number of detected cancers (DC), predictive positive value (PPV) of recalls, false positive rate (FPR), human reading workload, and economic impact were estimated.
resultsAt AI-CMS thresholds of 5%, 8%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%, human workload decrease ranged from 13.4% to 36.1%. The final RR decreased between 4.3% and 4.0%, slightly lower than the current 4.4% with human double reading. The PPV ranged from 12.6% to 13.3%, higher than the current PPV of 12.2%. The FPR ranged from 3.8% to 3.5%, down from the current 3.9%. With thresholds up to 5%, no true positive cases were missed, maintaining the CDR of 5.4‰ of those detected by current double reading. Considering CAD payback periods of either 6 or 8 years, financial savings from our strategy ranged from approximately 17800 to over 590,000€.
conclusionIntegrating AI-CMS support into a standard screening scenario could substantially reduce the screen-reading workload and slightly reduce unnecessary ascertainments without affecting the cancer detection rate. This approach, although limited by its retrospective simulation design and the partial availability of interval cancer data, has also proven to be economically sustainable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41296250What 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.