ArticleNature cancer2026
Impact of using artificial intelligence as a second reader in breast screening including arbitration.
Article in Nature cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary Error Patterns Between Human Evaluators and GPT-4o in Video-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Assessment: Implications for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Second Reading.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy, fairness and clinical implementation of AI for breast cancer screening: results of multicenter retrospective and prospective technical feasibility studies.Nature cancer · 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
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into a double-read breast-screening workflow, including arbitration, is unclear. This retrospective study included 50,000 representative women from two NHS breast-screening centers. All the women had long-term follow-up, allowing us to determine whether use of AI leads to earlier cancer detection. Cases requiring arbitration (8,732 cases) were read by 22 readers in a reader study, following their normal arbitration workflow. Overall, after arbitration, replacing the second reader with AI was noninferior (5% margin) to two human readers in terms of sensitivity and specificity (P < 0.001) while offering a workload benefit. Arbitration improved the specificity of the AI arm by overruling cases incorrectly recalled by the AI tool; however, it also overruled the AI tool recall decision for some interval and next-round cancers. Further development of the AI tool alongside improvement in its explainability could lead to the earlier detection of cancers.
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.