Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701602›Full record

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.

Yuriy Vasilev, Denis Rumyantsev, Anton Vladzymyrskyy, Olga Omelyanskaya, Kirill Arzamasov, Alexander Bazhin, Lev Pestrenin, Larisa Rodionova, Ilya Naletov, Arina Varlamova and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Yuriy VasilevResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5283-5961
Denis RumyantsevResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7670-7385
Anton VladzymyrskyyResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2990-7736
Olga OmelyanskayaResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0245-4431
Kirill ArzamasovResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7786-0349
Alexander BazhinResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3198-1334
Lev PestreninResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1786-4329
Larisa RodionovaResearch and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9862-8205
Ilya NaletovThird Opinion Platform, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9588-2123
Arina VarlamovaThird Opinion Platform, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6793-608X
Valery BelotskyThird Opinion Platform, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5618-1256
Emilia StarikovaThird Opinion Platform, Moscow, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8547-8318

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)mammographyradiologysoftwaresoftware validation

Identifiers

PMID42701602
PMCPMC13545622

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.