ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2026
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Detection and Short-Term Breast Cancer Risk Models within and beyond Their Intended Use in Mammography Screening.
Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To compare artificial intelligence-based breast cancer detection and short-term breast cancer risk prediction models in their intended and nonintended settings over a single mammography screening round. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, the Cohort of Screen-Age Women-Case Control dataset from Sweden (May 2008-December 2016; Hologic) was used, including patients with screen-detected and interval cancers, with interval cancers defined as a diagnosis more than 60 days after screening. Two examination-based settings were evaluated: detection (screening examinations) and short-term risk (screen-negative examinations). Mirai Risk, RSNA Detection (2023 challenge winner), Transpara Detection, and Transpara Risk models were assessed in both intended and nonintended settings. Discriminative performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and then clinically relevant sensitivity and specificity thresholds were compared. Results A total of 20 187 examinations (7430 women) were included, with 741 examinations leading to diagnosis within 2 years (524 screen-detected and 217 interval cancers) and 19 446 examinations without cancer. Transpara Detection and Transpara Risk achieved similar performance for detection (AUC for each, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.93;
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.