Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41857202›Full record

ArticleNature medicine2026

AI-based triage and decision support in mammography and digital tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: a paired, noninferiority trial.

Esperanza Elías-Cabot, Sara Romero-Martín, José Luis Raya-Povedano, Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz, Marina Álvarez-Benito

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04849776 no registry record found
NCT07768085 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of AI-Assisted Reading Compared With Standard Radiology Interpretation for Malignant Hepatic Lesions on Contrast-Enhanced CT: Diagnostic, Clinical and Workflow Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorShengjing HospitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled40,000ConditionsHepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (Icc), Hepatic Metastasis, Hepatic HemangiomaArmsAI-assisted abdominal CE-CT reporting, Standard abdominal CE-CT reporting without AI assistance
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Esperanza Elías-CabotMaimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain. eeliascabot@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0085-4060
Sara Romero-MartínMaimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3459-9050
José Luis Raya-PovedanoMaimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1034-4184
Alejandro Rodríguez-RuizScreenPoint Medical BV, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marina Álvarez-BenitoMaimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-3393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been demonstrated to improve the accuracy of screening mammograms. Here this prospective, paired, noninferiority clinical trial evaluated whether AI could safely reduce workload by excluding low-risk exams from radiologist reading. Between March 2022 and January 2024, 31,301 women were included in the trial and underwent routine mammograms. Two reading strategies were applied in parallel: standard double-blind reading and partially autonomous AI-supported screening, where cases classified by AI as low risk were assessed as normal and the rest were double read with AI support. The primary outcomes were radiologist workload, cancer detection rate and recall rate. In the AI strategy, radiologist workload was 63.6% lower; the cancer detection rate was 15.2% higher (95% confidence interval 6.6%, 24.4%), increasing from 6.3 of 1,000 to 7.3 of 1,000, P < 0.001; and the recall rate was not noninferior and was 14.8% higher (95% confidence interval 9.0%, 20.6%). Subanalyses by modality highlighted a similar workload reduction in digital mammography (-62.1%) and digital breast tomosynthesis (-65.5%). However, in digital mammography, the cancer detection rate increased by 1.6 of 1,000 and the recall rate by 1.3%, while both remained stable in digital breast tomosynthesis. These results demonstrate the feasibility of a partially automated AI workflow in breast cancer screening, avoiding human reading of studies classified as low risk. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04849776 .

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyTriageAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIntelligent SystemsMiddle AgedProspective StudiesWorkload

Identifiers

PMID41857202
PMCPMC13099413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.