ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Performance across different versions of an artificial intelligence model for screen-reading of mammograms.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Who makes the cut: Should AI-measured breast density alone stratify screening?European radiology · 2026Article
- Missed and true interval cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammograms: radiologists' assessment and artificial intelligence markings.Acta radiologica open · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesStudies have reported promising results regarding artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for improved mammographic screening interpretive performance. We analyzed AI malignancy risk scores from two versions of the same commercial AI model. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from 117,709 screening examinations performed in BreastScreen Norway 2009-2018. The mammograms were processed by two versions of the commercially available AI model, Transpara (version 1.7 and 2.1). The distributions of exam-level risk scores (AI score 1-10) and risk categories were evaluated for both AI versions on all examinations, including 737 screen-detected and 200 interval cancers. Scores between 1-7 were categorized as low risk, 8-9 as intermediate risk, and 10 as high risk of malignancy.
resultsArea under the receiver operating curve was 0.908 (95% CI: 0.986-0.920) for version 1.7 and 0.928 (95% CI: 0.917-0.939) for 2.1 when screen-detected and interval cancers were considered as positive cases (p < 0.001). A total of 87.1% (642/737) and 93.5% (689/737) of the screen-detected cancers had an AI score of 10 with version 1.7 and 2.1, respectively. Among interval cancers, 45.0% (90/200) had AI score 10 with version 1.7 and 44.5% (89/200) had AI score 10 with version 2.1.
conclusionA higher proportion of screen-detected breast cancers had the highest AI score of 10 with the newer version of the AI model compared to the older version. For interval cancers, there was no difference in the proportion of cases assigned to the highest score between the two versions. KEY POINTS: Question Studies have reported promising results regarding the use of AI in mammography screening, but comparisons of updated versus older versions are less studied. Findings In our study, 87.1% (642/737) of the screen-detected cancers were classified with a high malignancy risk score by the old version, while it was 93.5% (689/737) for the newer version. Clinical relevance Understanding how version updates of AI models might impact screening mammography performance will be important for future quality assurance and validation of AI models.
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.