ReviewJMIR medical informatics2026
Viewpoint on the Consequences and Mitigation of Cognitive Bias in the Radiological Interpretation of Breast Cancer Imaging Using Artificial Intelligence.
Review in JMIR medical informatics, 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.
- Evaluating cognitive biases in AI-assisted mammography interpretation: a simulation reader study of explainable AI across radiologist experience levels.European radiology · 2026Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Mammography: A Systematic Review of Methods, Evaluation Practices, and Clinical Readiness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into breast imaging workflows, offering the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and early cancer detection. Image interpretation plays a pivotal role in the breast cancer diagnostic pathway, directly influencing therapeutic decisions and patient outcomes. However, the effective implementation of AI-assisted systems relies not only on technical performance but also on radiologists' trust, acceptance, and readiness to incorporate these tools into clinical practice. In addition, system-related, perceptual, and cognitive factors may contribute to diagnostic errors, ultimately affecting overall accuracy and reliability. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the cognitive and systemic sources of diagnostic inaccuracies in breast imaging, emphasizing the growing role of AI as both a supportive and potentially bias-modulating tool. Recent prospective studies have demonstrated the clinical safety and effectiveness of AI-assisted mammography screening, reporting improved cancer detection rates and reduced workload. Nonetheless, the integration of AI into diagnostic workflows without an appropriate knowledge of the consequences may introduce new cognitive biases, such as anchoring, automation, and confirmation bias, that influence radiologists' decision-making and counteract the intended benefits. To address these challenges, the paper outlines strategies to mitigate diagnostic errors and foster appropriate integration of AI into clinical practice. These include targeted training programs, enhanced interdisciplinary communication, and standardized interpretation workflows that promote consistent evidence-based practice. Furthermore, the adoption of explainable AI approaches is identified as a key factor in improving model transparency and interpretability, allowing radiologists to understand algorithmic reasoning and engage in a more informed, confidence-based human-AI collaboration. Ultimately, a balanced and context-sensitive integration of AI, grounded in continuous professional education and cognitive awareness, is essential for improving diagnostic accuracy while preserving radiologists' critical analytical skills.
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.