ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
Human-AI interaction in a cancer-enriched double-reading breast screening cohort: diagnostic accuracy and second-reader behavior.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of deploying AI as the first reader (R1) in a double-reading breast-screening workflow and to characterize second-reader (R2) behavior—including the effect of disclosing whether R1 was AI or human. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study used a cancer-enriched cohort of 220 women (95 cancers), with prevalence-weighted analyses performed to approximate population screening metrics. Five radiologists and one commercially available AI (Breast-SlimView®, Hera-MI) each served as R1; four radiologists served as R2. For each R2, cases were randomized 1:1 to AI-first versus human-first and, independently, to disclosure versus concealment of R1 identity. R2 could validate, dismiss, or add annotations. The primary endpoint was final decision correctness by breast. We used GEE logistic regression to estimate the overall effect of using AI as the first reader and to isolate second-reader behavior independently of first-reader accuracy.
resultsAt the prespecified R1 operating point, AI had sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of 85.2%/79.5%/80.8% versus 84.3%/84.5%/85.0% for human R1s; crude final accuracy was lower for AI-first. At 0.6% prevalence, AI-first yielded higher recalls (20.8% vs. 16.8%) with slightly lower PPV (2.7% vs. 3.0%). Conditioning on R1 correctness, R2s were approximately twice more likely to overturn an incorrect AI-initiated opinion than an incorrect human-initiated one (OR ≈ 2.05, p < 0.001). Disclosure that R1 was AI increased R2 corrections (from 13.6% to 19.1%, p = 0.029). Thirteen AI-true-positive cues were dismissed by R2.
conclusionsAt this operating point, AI-first reduced crude accuracy due to lower specificity, yet reader-behavior analyses indicate greater scrutiny of AI-initiated opinions. Protocol, threshold, and user-interface choices may raise specificity while preserving beneficial human–AI dynamics.
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.