ArticleActa radiologica open2026
Missed and true interval cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammograms: radiologists' assessment and artificial intelligence markings.
Article in Acta radiologica open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interval cancer, breast cancer detected after a negative screening examination but before the next scheduled appointment, represents a challenge in mammography screening programs due to less favorable histopathological characteristics compared to screen-detected cancer. Purpose: To determine which interval cancers from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) were classified as missed and true by radiologists in a review, and to stratify the findings by risk scores and markings provided by an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Material and methods: In this retrospective informed consensus-based review, radiologists assessed mammograms from 46 interval cancers and classified those as false negative, minimal-sign significant or non-specific, or true negative. An AI risk score (1-7, low; 8-9, intermediate; or 10, high risk of malignancy) was available for each examination. For cases with AI risk scores of 8-10, the location of AI-detected markings was compared with the true cancer site. Results: A total of 17% (8/46) of interval cancers were classified as false negative, 22% (10/46) as minimal-sign significant, 20% (9/46) as minimal-sign non-specific, and 41% (19/46) as true negative. The AI model correctly identified 35% (16/46) and incorrectly located 24% (11/46). Considering false negative and minimal-sign significant as cases with the highest probability of being diagnosed at screening due to mammographic visibility, the proportion of cases correctly identified by the AI model was reduced from 35% to 22% (10/46). Conclusion: About 20% of interval cancers have potential to be diagnosed earlier using AI in DBT screen-reading.
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.