ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Implementation of an artificial intelligence-based system for mammography in the compulsory medical insurance program: results of a 3-year study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into mammography holds significant potential for addressing the increasing workload and radiologist burnout, yet its widespread clinical adoption is hindered by critical limitations in current validation practices. Existing frameworks frequently fail to account for AI's dynamic evolution through retraining, data heterogeneity, and real-world deployment within healthcare systems such as compulsory medical insurance (CMI). This study aims to ensure continuous quality control of a mammography AI solution during its implementation in the CMI system by applying a novel lifecycle-based testing and monitoring methodology that addresses these specific gaps. Methods: The observational study incorporated retrospective functional and calibration testing, alongside prospective technical and clinical monitoring, interspersed with AI system updates. Anonymized digital mammograms from women aged ≥18 years underwent analysis. Prospective monitoring included all mammograms from participating sites (no exclusion criteria), capturing continuous real-world clinical data. The mammography AI system utilized U-Net++ and Mask2Former architectures, trained on ~4,000 mammograms. Key metrics encompassed area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, technical defect rates, and clinical assessment scores. Results: The test dataset comprised 404,502 mammograms from 206 medical organizations and three mammography equipment manufacturers. A total of 336 radiologists participated. The testing and monitoring period lasted 2 years and 5 months. Over this time, AUC increased by 10.8% (from 0.83 to 0.92), accuracy by 16.9% (from 0.77 to 0.90), sensitivity by 4.8% (from 0.84 to 0.88), and specificity by 30.0% (from 0.70 to 0.91). The average technical defect rate decreased by 26.7% (from 3.0% to 0.8%), and the clinical assessment score rose by 47.8% (from 54.38% to 80.36%). The study culminated in the integration of the AI system into the regional CMI program. A key limitation of this study is the relatively small retrospective calibration testing dataset (100 mammograms) and the lack of external validation on independent datasets from other regions or countries. Conclusions: Iterative testing with prospective real-world monitoring, interleaved developer updates, and radiologist feedback substantially enhanced mammography AI performance. This lifecycle testing methodology demonstrates feasibility for clinical integration and CMI program deployment, balancing rigorous validation with continuous improvement. Future work will focus on expanding the retrospective calibration testing dataset and scaling the approach to a national level within the CMI framework.
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.