ArticleInsights into imaging2026
AI-based image quality assessment of positioning in mammography: considerations and challenges.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) could facilitate and objectify quality assessment in the daily routine. The purpose was to explore the extent to which an AI prototype algorithm is able to replicate the perfect-good-moderate-inadequate (PGMI) system (perfect, good, moderate, inadequate). MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom a multicentre case collection, 200 standard mammograms (800 images) were selected. A deep learning-based prototype software was used to rate the images in analogy to the PGMI system. The AI results were compared with a reference standard obtained through consensus reading by three expert radiographers and one expert radiologist, using quadratically weighted Cohen's kappa with confidence intervals (CI) and context-based interpretation. Frequency and reasons for disagreement were evaluated for challenging cases with a discrepancy of two or more grades and a discrepancy in assigning an inadequate.
resultsFor overall PGMI per image, slight agreement between human consensus and AI was observed for CC views (κ = 0.14) and fair agreement for MLO views (κ = 0.25). The highest agreement was observed for the CC category "M. Pectoralis visibility" (substantial, κ = 0.75). Best category in MLO was "Pectoralis angle" (moderate, κ = 0.49). For other categories, fair, slight or poor agreement was observed. The work-up of disagreement gave insight into misinterpretations of anatomical landmarks and causality issues in the categorization.
conclusionTransforming the PGMI system into a fully automated AI algorithm is challenging and may differ substantially between subcategories. Further research in computer science and quality assessment methodology is needed to pave the way for AI-based objective quality management in mammography. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Profound evaluation of AI algorithms and their ability to replicate human interpretation, scoring, and classification are the basis and scientific framework toward AI-based objective quality management in mammography. KEY POINTS: AI has huge potential for automated assessment of diagnostic image quality. Compared with human reading agreement, substantial disagreement may also be found. Direct transformation of perfect-good-moderate-inadequate scoring into an AI algorithm is challenging.
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.