ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Performance of clinical breast cancer risk prediction models vs a mammography-based artificial intelligence risk model.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-based, mammography breast cancer risk prediction models show improved discriminatory accuracy relative to clinical risk models. However, data on their calibration are limited. This study compared model performance of 3 clinical breast cancer risk models: Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick v8, and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium v3 with the MIRAI AI-risk model.
methodsDigital mammograms were ascertained from a screening mammography cohort of 12 308 women within the Mayo Clinic Biobank with 250 incident breast cancers (176 invasive) within 5 years. We predicted 5-year breast cancer risk, estimated discriminatory accuracy (C-index), and calibration (observed-to-expected ratio) of both overall and invasive breast cancer and compared estimates using bootstrapping approaches.
resultsMIRAI demonstrated similar or improved discriminatory accuracy of overall breast cancer (C-index = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.74) and invasive breast cancer (C-index = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.75) compared with clinical models (overall breast cancer: C-index = 0.59-0.68; invasive breast cancer: C-index = 0.60-0.68). MIRAI's calibration for risk of overall breast cancer (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.08) was improved compared with Gail (observed-to-expected ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.38) and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (observed-to-expected ratio = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.56) but similar to TC with volumetric percent density and polygenic risk score (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.13). However, for low-risk women (approximately 50%), MIRAI overestimated risk of overall breast cancer. MIRAI also overestimated risk of invasive breast cancer across the risk spectrum (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.78), whereas clinical models had good calibration (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.86-0.99).
conclusionMIRAI demonstrated stronger discriminatory accuracy than clinical models for 5-year overall and invasive breast cancer risk prediction but overestimated risk for both breast cancer endpoints. AI-based risk models should consider discriminatory accuracy and calibration for invasive cancer before implementation.
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.