ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026
Economic evaluation of artificial intelligence for cancer detection in the UK breast screening programme.
Article in British journal of cancer, 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 Value for Money of AI-Assisted Technologies for Older Adults: Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution to radiologist shortages in breast cancer screening while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Retrospective studies suggest AI performs comparably to human readers in detecting cancers, but no economic evaluations have yet used prospective trial data.
methodsWe developed a de novo discrete-event simulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of integrating AI into the NHS screening pathway using evidence from a large prospective trial.
resultsThe AI-only strategy generated a small incremental QALY gain of 0.00009 and reduced lifetime costs by £159.55 per woman invited, and had a 100% probability of being most cost-effective at the £20,000/QALY threshold. Replacing one human reader with AI also increased QALYs, by 0.00019, and reduced costs by £31.07. Triple reading (two humans plus AI) produced the largest QALY gain (0.00023) but increased costs by £72.79. All AI-based pathways reduced cancer deaths, shifted cancers from advanced (TNM stage 4) to earlier stages at detection, and increased the proportion of cancers detected by screening.
conclusionUsing AI in place of human readers is likely to be cost-effective, marginally improving health outcomes while reducing overall costs, with full replacement of both human readers being the most cost-effective screening strategy.
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.