ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Revealing artifacts in contrast-enhanced mammography: prevalence and implications for diagnostic accuracy.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distinguishing and evaluating the incidence and impact of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) artifacts and pitfalls can be challenging. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyze the frequency of CEM's artifacts and compare the detection rates between two operators with differing experience levels. Methods: Between January 2020 to December 2023, we conducted a retrospective review of 201 patients who underwent CEM. We evaluated patient-related artifacts, contrast agent-related artifacts, technical artifacts and pitfalls, estimating the incidence of each. CEM evaluations were carried out by a senior breast radiologist with 30 years of experience [Master (M)] and a radiology resident with 1 year of training in breast radiology [Alumn (A)]. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and overall concordance was further assessed through Spearman's rank correlation analysis. Results: Two hundred and one female patients with a mean age of 58.03 years (standard deviation ±12.29 years) were enrolled. The incidence of patient-related artifacts was higher for A compared to M (6.5% Conclusions: This study highlights the high frequency and variability of CEM artifacts, particularly technical and interpretative ones, with detection rates differing notably by reader experience. Less experienced readers tended to overidentify skin line artifacts and blind areas. These findings emphasize the need for standardized training and interpretation protocols to improve diagnostic consistency in CEM.
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.