ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Performance of breast cancer risk prediction algorithms across mammography systems in the UK screening programme.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
Abstract
Thirty percent of interval breast cancers, diagnosed between routine screening mammograms, have a poorer prognosis than screen-detected cancers. Deep learning algorithms can estimate short-term risk from negative mammograms to guide supplemental imaging or screening intervals, but comparative validation on complete national screening data is lacking. We retrospectively evaluated four risk algorithms (Mirai, iCAD, Transpara, and Google) using 112,621 negative mammograms from two UK NHS Breast Screening Programme sites with different mammography systems (Philips, GE) over one screening round (2014-2017) with five-year follow-up, including 1225 future cancers. There was a distinct ranking in discriminative ability; overall AUCs ranged 0.65-0.72, only one algorithm significantly differed between systems. For interval cancers, AUCs ranged 0.67-0.77. Within the highest 4.0% of risk scores, top algorithms identified ~20% of future cancers, including ~27% of interval cancers, doubling at the 14.0% threshold. These differences highlight the need for multi-algorithm prospective trials and potential fine-tuning to improve generalisation across unseen systems.
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.