ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Impact of AI assistance on reading time, cancer detection rate, and abnormal interpretation rate in screening and diagnostic mammography: a prospective alternating-month study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare reading time, cancer detection rate (CDR), and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted periods in screening and diagnostic mammography performed in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively collected reading times for consecutive two-view full-field digital mammography interpreted by four radiologists between August 2023 and July 2024. Both screening and diagnostic examinations were included. A commercially available AI system was integrated into the clinical workflow, with results displayed or hidden on a monthly basis. Reading time, CDR, and AIR were compared between two periods. For reading time analysis, a subset of 2917 examinations with times ≤ 5 min was included to minimize the impact of non-interpretive interruptions. Reading time was extracted from the PACS log.
resultsAmong 4577 mammography examinations (mean age 51.7 ± 10.4 years), the overall CDR was higher during the AI-assisted period (22.3 vs 11.5 per 1000; p = 0.005). AIR did not differ for screening mammography (9.5% vs 8.4%; p = 0.293) but was higher with AI assistance for diagnostic mammography (18.7% vs 12.1%; p = 0.026). Mean reading times were comparable between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted periods (65.0 vs 64.3 s; p = 0.723).
conclusionAI assistance in routine mammography interpretation was not associated with prolonged reading time and was associated with a higher overall CDR. KEY POINTS: Question Does artificial intelligence assistance in routine mammography affect radiologists' reading time, cancer detection, or abnormal interpretation in daily practice? Findings Artificial intelligence assistance was not associated with prolonged reading time and was associated with a higher overall cancer detection rate. Abnormal interpretation increased only for diagnostic examinations, with no difference in screening examinations. Clinical relevance AI assistance may support screening mammography by aiding cancer detection without disrupting workflow, whereas diagnostic use should be applied carefully due to higher abnormal interpretation rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593499What 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.