ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Mammographic density assessment by an artificial intelligence model for breast cancer detection in BreastScreen Norway.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe sensitivity of mammographic screening is lower for women with mammographically dense vs fatty breasts. We aimed to explore automated mammographic breast density and malignancy risk scores generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) model for breast cancer detection, stratified by mammography vendor. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included information from 200,000 examinations within BreastScreen Norway. An automated volumetric breast density (VBD) assessment and risk scores were obtained from a commercial AI model. The continuous VBD output from the AI model was categorized into four groups, VBD 1-4, with 15%, 40%, 40%, and 5% of the examinations in each group for exam level and for right and left breast. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for breast cancer detection was calculated using a continuous AI risk score. Analyses were performed for exam-level and breast-level measures.
resultsAt exam level, the difference in AUC estimates between the VBD groups was statistically significant, with the highest AUC observed for VBD 1 (0.955, 95% CI: 0.937-0.992) and lowest for VBD 4 (0.857, 95% CI: 0.803-0.910). Stratified by vendor, 3.3% and 6.7% were classified as VBD 4 for A vs B. At breast level, 18.5% of the examinations were classified with different VBD groups for the right and left breast.
conclusionDespite high AUC estimates across all VBD groups and the potential advantages of an automated density assessment, several factors, such as vendor and breast vs exam level, must be carefully considered before implementing automated density measures in screening programs. KEY POINTS: Question What are the benefits and drawbacks of mammographic density assessment using an AI model for breast cancer detection? Findings The AI model's performance for cancer detection was promising but decreased with increasing density category. Density distribution varied by equipment vendor and examination level. Clinical relevance AI risk assessment at the current examination was promising despite the variation by mammographic density. However, discrepancies in density by equipment vendors and examination level highlight the need for careful consideration before use in risk-stratified screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42593501What 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.