ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on BI-RADS Classification and Diagnostic Confidence in Mammography Interpretation by Radiology Residents.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used as a decision-support tool in mammography, but its influence on radiology residents' interpretive behavior remains insufficiently characterized. This study evaluated the impact of AI assistance on BI-RADS classification and diagnostic confidence among radiology residents.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center, multi-reader paired study included 112 diagnostic mammography examinations, corresponding to 223 assessable breasts and 2230 resident-breast readings. Ten radiology residents interpreted 2D mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis examinations first without AI assistance and subsequently with access to AI output. Changes in the BI-RADS category, diagnostic confidence, reasons for modification, and agreement with an expert-consensus BI-RADS reference standard were analyzed.
resultsAI-assisted reassessment changed the BI-RADS classification in 9.7% of readings and diagnostic confidence in 19.2%, with any AI-associated modification observed in 24.3% of instances. Upgrades were more frequent than downgrades, particularly for medium- and high-suspicion AI outputs. Confidence increased more often than it decreased. Expert-reference agreement improved modestly, and BI-RADS 4+ sensitivity increased from 72.0% to 82.3%, with stable negative agreement, but these metrics reflect agreement with expert BI-RADS consensus rather than pathology-confirmed cancer detection.
conclusionsAI assistance influenced both BI-RADS reassessment and diagnostic confidence among radiology residents, producing modest but directionally favorable changes. These findings support cautious, supervised integration of AI into breast imaging training, with attention to confidence calibration and potential overreliance.
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.