ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Evaluating artificial intelligence-generated synthesized mammography as a standalone alternative to digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis.
Article in Japanese journal of 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether standalone synthesized mammography (SM) can maintain or improve diagnostic accuracy while reducing reading time and radiation dose, compared to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) or DM alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study. SM images were generated using an AI-supported DBT reading method that synthesizes key features from DBT images without displaying marks or outlines. Twelve readers independently evaluated 200 breasts (including 50 cancers) using SM alone and DM with or without DBT acquired from October 2022 to January 2023. Diagnostic performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, reading time, and radiation dose. A multireader, multicase statistical model was applied. Sample size and power calculations were based on estimates from a prior study.
resultsSM alone achieved an AUC of 0.912, which did not differ significantly from that of DBT with DM (0.906; p = 0.538) or DM alone (0.897; p = 0.13). Sensitivity improved from 88.1% (DBT with DM) and 86.6% (DM) to 90.9% with SM, with a significant improvement over DM (p = 0.042). Specificity remained comparable (SM: 84.5%; DBT with DM: 85.9%; DM: 86.5%). SM alone reduced mean reading time by 53.1% (122.6 to 57.5 s; p < 0.001) and radiation dose by 39% (1.73 vs. 2.84 mGy) compared with DBT with DM.
conclusionsStandalone AI-generated SM preserved the diagnostic accuracy of DBT with DM while reducing reading time and radiation dose, and improved sensitivity over DM without loss of specificity.
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.