ArticleNature cancer2026
Diagnostic accuracy, fairness and clinical implementation of AI for breast cancer screening: results of multicenter retrospective and prospective technical feasibility studies.
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in oncology: linking biological discovery to clinical utility.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Large-scale AI-guided liver malignancy diagnosis: multicenter study and a single-arm trial.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- A National Audit of Mammography Systems Settings That May Affect the Output of Artificial Intelligence Software.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
- AI for breast cancer screening.Nature cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of using artificial intelligence as a second reader in breast screening including arbitration.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
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to enhance breast cancer screening. Here we evaluated Google's mammography AI system (version 1.2) across two phases: a retrospective study using 115,973 mammograms from five National Health Service screening services with 39-month follow-up and prospective noninterventional feasibility deployment at 12 sites (9,266 cases). The primary endpoint was AI sensitivity and specificity versus first reader using a 5% noninferiority margin. The secondary endpoints were performance versus second or consensus readers and breast-level analyses. Retrospectively, AI achieved superior sensitivity (0.541 versus 0.437 for first reader, P < 0.001) and noninferior specificity (0.943 versus 0.952, P < 0.001). Cancer detection rate increased from 7.54 to 9.33 per 1,000 women, with AI detecting 25.0% of interval cancers. Performance was particularly strong for first screens (39.3% fewer recalls, 8.8% higher detection) and invasive cancers. No systematic demographic disparities were observed. Simulated second-reader replacement reduced reading time by 32% while increasing detection by 17.7%. Prospective deployment confirmed technical feasibility but revealed a distribution shift requiring threshold recalibration. Implementation requires adaptive calibration and continuous monitoring to ensure safety and equity.
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.