ReviewInsights into imaging2025
Over-detection and over-surveillance in breast screening: current status and the potential for artificial intelligence optimisation.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Does ACR BI-RADSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mapping the research landscape of photoacoustic imaging in breast cancer: a text-based bibliometric analysis.Gland 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast screening reduces cancer-specific mortality but can also precipitate avoidable harms through over-detection of benign abnormalities and subsequent over-surveillance. Across mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), gains in sensitivity are often offset by reduced specificity, driving false-positive recalls, benign-biopsy burden and resource strain. Within breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS)-guided decision-making, Category 3 and Category 4A trigger short-interval follow-up or biopsy despite low event rates, amplifying anxiety and cost. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a practical route to mitigate these drawbacks. Prospective and real-world studies indicate that AI-assisted reading can maintain or improve cancer detection while lowering recall rates and workload. AI models also support finer risk stratification-particularly for BI-RADS 4 lesions-thereby reducing unnecessary interventions. This review synthesises evidence on the performance and limitations of mainstream screening technologies, delineates the multidimensional impact of over-detection, and evaluates the capacity of AI to rebalance sensitivity and specificity, optimise follow-up intervals and support risk-adapted workflows. A patient-centred, evidence-driven strategy that integrates validated AI with clearly defined decision thresholds and effective patient-provider communication can maximise benefit while minimising harm. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review critically evaluates the causes and consequences of over-detection and over-surveillance in breast cancer screening and highlights how AI can advance radiologic decision-making through improved lesion stratification and more efficient, personalised follow-up strategies. KEY POINTS: BI-RADS thresholds largely drive over-detection; refining downgrade rules for 3 and tightening biopsy in 4A may reduce unnecessary interventions without compromising cancer detection. Over-detection imposes burdens: unnecessary imaging and biopsies, psychosocial distress, economic costs, and environmental impact; its reduction enhances efficiency and patient safety. AI-assisted screening maintains or improves cancer detection while reducing recall rates and workload; it also enables risk-adapted management of BI-RADS 4A lesions, avoiding low-value procedures.
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.