ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2026
AI as a Safety Net Reader for Mammograms Classified as Normal or Benign in the French Screening Program.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the French national breast cancer screening program, second reading is performed only for mammograms interpreted as negative (Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System [BI-RADS] 1-2) at first reading, representing a unique screening workflow in Europe. This retrospective study assessed whether artificial intelligence (AI) could identify a subgroup of negative screening mammograms that could safely bypass second reading. A total of 55 589 screening mammograms from 42 419 women aged 50-74 years (January 2015-December 2019) whose mammograms were initially classified as BI-RADS 1-2 were analyzed. Second reading outcomes were compared with those of a commercial AI system using a predefined binary threshold (≥5). Among these examinations, 183 of 55 589 (0.33%) were recalled at second reading, yielding 12 cancers (positive predictive value, 6.6%; cancer detection rate, 0.22 per 1000 examinations). AI classified 42 606 of 55 589 (76.6%) examinations as low risk (≤4) and 12 983 of 55 589 (23.3%) as nonlow risk (≥5). One cancer was detected in the AI-low group (one of 55 589 [0.002%]) compared with 11 in the AI-nonlow group (11 of 55 589 [0.020%];
Indexed as
Identifiers
42200796What 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.