ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Location of AI risk markers and associated mammographic features in screening mammograms obtained years before screen-detected breast cancer.
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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine screening mammograms assigned high-risk scores by two artificial intelligence (AI) models, 2 and 4 years prior to screen-detected cancers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was based on data from 130,031 screening examinations performed in BreastScreen Norway (2008-2018), processed by two AI models: a commercial model (A) and an in-house model (B). The study sample included women with screen-detected cancer, and two prior consecutive screening examinations assigned the highest 10% of AI risk scores. Two radiologists conducted an informed review of three consecutive screening mammograms per woman, 4 and 2 years prior to, and at diagnosis. Descriptive statistics assessed the location of AI markings, mammographic features, histopathological tumor characteristics, and visibility of malignancy preceding diagnosis.
resultsModel A and B assigned high-risk scores at both prior mammograms for 43 and 47 cases, respectively, with 29 cases selected by both, yielding 61 sets of three consecutive examinations. AI markings corresponded to the cancer location in at least one view in 61% and 57% of cases 4 years prior to diagnosis for models A and B, respectively, while radiologists classified 89% as true negative or minimal sign non-specific. At diagnosis, spiculated mass (28%) and density with calcifications (20%) were the most frequent mammographic features but were absent 2 and 4 years prior.
conclusionThe AI models identified breast cancer in a substantial part of screening mammograms 2 and 4 years preceding diagnosis, but only a few demonstrated suspicious findings according to radiologists. KEY POINTS: Question Understanding the correspondence between AI markings, cancer location, and mammographic features is important to evaluate AI models' potential to enhance early breast cancer detection. Findings AI markings corresponded to the cancer location 4 and 2 years prior to diagnosis, with evolving mammographic features, yet radiologists classified most examinations as negative. Clinical relevance The discrepancy between AI-identified breast cancers years before diagnosis and radiologists classifying the same cases as negative highlights both AI's potential and the challenges of how best to implement it to enhance early detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42313161What 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.