ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2025
Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Specialist Physicians in Breast Care Triaging: A Real-World Observational Study.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of a proprietary breast-specific machine learning (ML) model-built upon the open-source Open Triage platform-in comparison to specialist physicians, using standardized real-world clinical data for breast referral triaging. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using 174 standardized breast cases obtained from proprietary industry datasets, spanning 46 disease types, 23 of which were cancers. The cohort ranged from 19 to 75 years (mean: 39.4±12.0). Physicians and an ML model each generated three diagnostic predictions per case. Both modalities were compared after benchmarking their predictions against a gold-standard diagnosis established by imaging and biopsy. Performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Time efficiency was also assessed to compare diagnostic turnaround times between physician- and ML-generated predictions. Results: The ML model demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (100%) compared to physicians (83.9%), with higher sensitivity (0.947 Conclusion: The ML model demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to or better than that of physicians while significantly reducing the time required. These findings suggest that AI-powered triage tools could enhance the efficiency and standardization of breast triage.
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.