ArticleInsights into imaging2026
AI performance varies considerably across mammography devices: a multi-site and multi-vendor retrospective study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm on three different mammography devices and assess screening performance using general and device-specific thresholds. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 22,673 AI-assessed mammographies of women aged 50-69 collected in 2022-2023 from three mammography devices across six screening sites within a Swiss Mammography Screening Program. 115 screen-detected and 15 1-year interval breast cancers were included in the analyses. A commercially available AI algorithm assessed each mammography with a numeric case score. Optimal thresholds were determined across all devices and for each device separately using the Youden-Index. Screening performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and cancer detection rate (CDR).
resultsStandard double-reading had a CDR of 5.07 (95% CI: 4.19-6.09). Using AI with a general threshold achieved a CDR of 4.81 (95% CI: 3.95-5.80), which was enhanced using device-specific thresholds to 4.90 (95% CI: 4.03-5.89). Workload for radiologists in consensus conferences was lowered by nearly one-third when using device-specific thresholds compared to a general threshold (p < 0.001). Nonetheless, AI screening performance for one of the mammography devices was poor even with device-specific thresholds.
conclusionAI-based performance varied considerably among the three mammography devices, emphasizing the need for device-specific thresholds or even the withdrawal of AI use on certain devices. Awareness of different case distribution among radiologists should be raised to mitigate the risk of interpretation biases and reduced diagnostic accuracy. Lastly, training datasets must be representative not only of the target population but also of the different screening devices used in practice. KEY POINTS: Question AI performance may vary across mammography devices, raising uncertainty about device-independent thresholds. Findings AI scores differed considerably across devices, indicating the need for device-specific thresholds, but performance on one device remained poor. Critical relevance The performance of an AI algorithm in mammography screening depends on adequately defined decision thresholds, and radiologists must be aware that AI scores can vary across mammography devices to avoid interpretation biases and to maintain diagnostic accuracy.
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.