Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42126307›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2026

Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with and without Prior Examinations in BreastScreen Norway.

Nataliia Moshina, Marthe Larsen, Åsne S Holen, Hildegunn S Aase, Kerstin Obst-Gleditsch, Hauke Bartsch, Leif Oltedal, Yan Chen, Solveig Hofvind

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nataliia MoshinaDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PB 5313 Majorstuen, Oslo 0304, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1477-1968
Marthe LarsenDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PB 5313 Majorstuen, Oslo 0304, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5437-0363
Åsne S HolenDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PB 5313 Majorstuen, Oslo 0304, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6624-6957
Hildegunn S AaseDepartment of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5442-1730
Kerstin Obst-GleditschDepartment of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Hauke BartschMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Leif OltedalMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3316-7950
Yan ChenFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Digital Cancer Screening Research Group, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3107-7898
Solveig HofvindDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PB 5313 Majorstuen, Oslo 0304, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0178-8939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsMammographyAgedBreastEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNorwayRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBreast CancerDigital Breast TomosynthesisMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID42126307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.