Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41669454›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026

Revealing artifacts in contrast-enhanced mammography: prevalence and implications for diagnostic accuracy.

Anna Colarieti, Eleonora Ostillio, Luca Eletti, Rita Spagnolo, Federico Traverso, Pietro Costantini, Alessandro Carriero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anna ColarietiDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4133-2012
Eleonora OstillioDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9632-183X
Luca ElettiDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Rita SpagnoloDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Federico TraversoDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Pietro CostantiniDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5365-7028
Alessandro CarrieroDepartment of Radiodiagnostic, AOU Maggiore della Carità di Novara, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-7169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast radiologyCEM artifactscontrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)

Identifiers

PMID41669454
PMCPMC12883604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.