ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2026
Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with and without Prior Examinations in BreastScreen Norway.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence as a Triage Partner in Breast Cancer Screening.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with and without prior screening examinations by using independent double reading by radiologists as the reference standard. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included women screened in BreastScreen Norway, 2018-2019. The AI model provided continuous malignancy risk and categorical scores (ie, 1-10) with and without the inclusion of prior examinations for 24 315 women with prior examinations. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated for AI using screening-detected and interval cancers as true-positives. The positive predictive value for a score of 10 was defined as the proportion of screening-detected cancers among all examinations scored 10. Results Among 30 724 DBT examinations of women (mean age ± SD, 61.3 years ± 5.0), the sensitivity of radiologists was 86.0% (95% CI: 81.3, 89.7). Among comparisons that included prior examinations, the AUC of the AI model was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.95), with 81.0% (95% CI: 75.8, 85.3) scored 10 (screening-detected: 88.3% [95% CI: 83.4, 91.9] vs interval cancers: 36.1% [95% CI: 22.5, 52.4]). The positive predictive value was 10.2% (95% CI: 8.9, 11.6). Among cases without prior examinations, the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.95;
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126307What 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.