ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2026
Assessing the robustness of AI lesion risk scores at different exposure settings using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the robustness of AI lesion risk scores at different exposure settings using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.Radiation protection dosimetry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the robustness of risk scores provided by an artificial intelligence (AI) system for digital mammography (DM), when varying the exposure conditions. An anthropomorphic breast phantom containing a lesion, was imaged with DM at different tube voltages (kV), tube loadings (mAs), and anode/filter combinations (W/Rh, Mo/Mo, and Mo/Rh). The organ doses were extracted from the DICOM header and used as a substitute for average glandular dose. The images were analyzed with an AI system, which provided a lesion risk score which translates to suspicion for malignancy. Correlations between the lesion risk score and the exposure conditions were investigated. In most imaging conditions, weak to moderately strong positive associations between lesion risk scores and kV and mAs, respectively, were reported (varying by anode/filter combinations). When organ dose increased the AI risk scores plateaued, and further increase did not increase the lesion risk score. For typical clinical settings (W/Rh, 27 kV and 71 mAs) the range of lesion risk scores was 33-56 (mean: 42, SD: 9). Greatest reported variability (range: 36-63, mean: 51, SD: 12) was found at 27 kV and 36 mAs (using W/Rh). Images of suboptimal quality may result in inaccurate AI system performance. The unexpectedly large intra-group variability of AI risk scores should be further investigated.
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.