ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparison of artificial intelligence (AI) services for Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification on mammograms.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Implementation of an artificial intelligence-based system for mammography in the compulsory medical insurance program: results of a 3-year study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Existing literature primarily focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) ability to detect malignant breast tumors, often neglecting or limiting analysis to Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 4 and 5. The diagnostic performance of AI for other BI-RADS categories remains understudied. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three mammographic AI services in predicting individual BI-RADS categories and definition of opportunity integration of AI into routine clinical practice. Methods: Anonymized mammograms were obtained from the Unified Radiological Information Service of Moscow. Inclusion criteria: screening mammogram, radiology report from an AI and a human radiologist, age patients 40-75 years. Exclusion criteria: mammograms without BI-RADS categories, BI-RADS categories 0 and 6. The AI performance was assessed by calculating their diagnostic performance using the radiologists' opinion as the ground truth together with the calibration tests. Results: The study sample consisted of 81,895 mammograms. Median accuracy was 76.9%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 11.8%. The highest negative predictive value (NPV) was observed for BI-RADS 2 (78.5-83.4%). The second highest NPVs were observed for BI-RADS 1, 3, 4, and 5 (over 84.7%). Binary classification yielded median accuracy and PPV values of 80.5% and 98.6% respectively, compared to the calibration testing (76.0% and 84.7%). Conclusions: Most AI service metrics were suboptimal for individual BI-RADS prediction, potentially due to reliance on variable radiologist conclusions and lack of histological calibration. Binary classification demonstrated higher performance metrics, and no significant differences in NPV were observed across AI applications, which means they can be recommended to confirm the absence of pathology. Successful integration of AI into routine clinical practice requires consideration of various diagnostic accuracy assessment methods, tailored to specific use cases.
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.