ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026
Acceptability of Using Artificial Intelligence in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program: A Randomized Online Survey of Screening-Eligible Women in England.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 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.
- Patient and Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging and Clinical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare acceptability of 2 artificial intelligence (AI) use cases in the English National Health Servic Breast Screening Program. Patients and Methods: From February 7 to March 14 2024, we conducted an online survey, randomizing participants to information about using AI either as the second mammogram reader or to triage mammograms. In the triage scenario, only higher-risk images would be reviewed by a human reader. The survey was completed by 3419 women aged 45 to 70 years, recruited from an online panel. The primary outcome was acceptability of the presented AI use case. We assessed a range of psychological and demographic factors. Regression modeling examined predictors of acceptability. Results: Using AI as a second reader was rated as more acceptable ( Conclusion: Artificial intelligence in breast screening was rated as more acceptable if used alongside, rather than instead of, a human reader. Ongoing careful evaluation is needed to ensure its roll-out does not widen existing social inequalities and that the risk-benefit profile of screening is maintained.
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.