Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42593501›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Mammographic density assessment by an artificial intelligence model for breast cancer detection in BreastScreen Norway.

Marthe Larsen, Nataliia Moshina, Karl Øyvind Mikalsen, Solveig Roth Hoff, Håkon Lund-Hanssen, Marit A Martiniussen, Marko Silberhorn, Marte M Schulze, Solveig Hofvind

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marthe LarsenDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Nataliia MoshinaDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Karl Øyvind MikalsenSPKI-The Norwegian Centre for Clinical Artificial Intelligence, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Solveig Roth HoffDepartment of Radiology, Møre og Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.
Håkon Lund-HanssenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Marit A MartiniussenDepartment of Radiology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Kalnes, Norway.
Marko SilberhornDepartment of Radiology, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Hamar, Norway.
Marte M SchulzeDepartment of Radiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Solveig HofvindDepartment of Breast Cancer Screening, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. sshh@fhi.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0178-8939

Funding

Kreftforeningen 214931
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligence, Breast densityBreast neoplasmsMammographyMass screening

Identifiers

PMID42593501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.