ArticleEuropean radiology2026
High risk score of breast cancer by artificial intelligence (AI) on screening mammograms: a review of negative and cancer cases.
Article in European radiology, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate mammographic features associated with high artificial intelligence (AI) risk scores as provided by two AI models applied to screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 130,031 screening mammograms from 42,371 women attending BreastScreen Norway, 2008-2018. Two AI models (A and B) developed for cancer detection on screening mammograms were applied. An informed radiological review was conducted for mammograms within the highest 5% of AI risk scores by both models in two study samples: (1) High AI risk score, but no breast cancer detected within 6 years (n = 120), and (2) High AI risk score in mammograms with screen-detected cancers (n = 120). Mammographic density (BI-RADS a-d), features (mass, spiculated mass, asymmetry, architectural distortion, calcification alone, and density with calcification), and radiologists' interpretation scores (1-5) were analyzed descriptively.
resultsMammographic density was higher in sample 1 compared to sample 2 (BI-RADS d: 11% vs 3%, respectively). In sample 1, calcifications alone were the most frequent AI-marked feature (model A: 72%; model B: 68%), predominantly with amorphous morphology and a cluster distribution, and 76% were interpreted as benign by the radiologists (interpretation score 1). In sample 2, a spiculated mass was the most frequent mammographic feature among the screen-detected cancers (29%).
conclusionMammograms assigned high AI risk scores exhibit distinct features depending on screening outcome. Systematic characterization of these features may help refine AI thresholds, improve specificity, reduce AI false-positive findings, and decrease the recall rate in breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: Question Knowledge about mammographic features associated with high AI risk scores is essential for distinguishing cancer from non-cancer cases. Findings Calcifications were the dominant feature in non-cancers in screening mammograms with high AI risk score, whereas spiculated mass was the most frequent feature among cancers. Clinical relevance Calcifications in non-cancer screening mammograms with a high AI risk score were frequently interpreted as benign or probably benign by radiologists. This knowledge may help refine AI thresholds and thereby improve specificity and reduce false-positive results in mammographic screening.
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.