ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Optimizing AI-assisted decision-making in mammography screening: focusing on uncertainties.
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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate an AI-based decision-support system for mammography interpretation, assessing its impact on diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 130,838 mammograms from 35,709 patients with confirmed follow-up outcomes across multiple centers, using the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDSM) for external validation. Representing one of the largest datasets from the Middle East, it evaluates model generalizability in underrepresented populations. An AI super-model incorporated separate UNet-based networks for lesion segmentation, a high-resolution model (4096) for calcifications, a multi-resolution ensemble (4096, 2048, 1024) for macro-scale lesions, and a risk-assessment model for malignancy prediction. Radiologists interpreted images under five scenarios: unaided, AI-assisted, AI as the final decision-maker in uncertain cases, union of radiologist and AI decisions in uncertain cases, and standalone AI.
resultsAI assistance significantly enhanced performance across all scenarios. Based on aggregated reader performance, AUC improved from 83.04% (95% CI: 79.8-86.3) unaided to 88.40% (95% CI: 85.6-91.2) in the union scenario (p < 0.001). Sensitivity increased from 54.8% (95% CI: 48.6-61.0) to 83.9% (95% CI: 79.3-88.4) (p < 0.001), and specificity rose from 83.6% (95% CI: 82.0-85.3) to 91.1% (95% CI: 89.8-92.4) (p < 0.001). Multi-resolution segmentation effectively detected calcifications and challenging lesions. DDSM validation confirmed model robustness. AI showed particular promise in aiding less-experienced radiologists in underserved areas to improve early cancer detection.
conclusionsAI in mammography interpretation improves diagnostic accuracy and reduces uncertainty, supporting early breast cancer detection and optimized screening workflows. KEY POINTS: Question Can an AI-based decision-support system improve the accuracy of mammography interpretation, reduce diagnostic uncertainty, and support less-experienced radiologists? Findings In this retrospective multicenter study, AI-assisted mammography improved sensitivity and specificity, increased cancer detection, and reduced recalls and false positives. Critical relevance statement AI integration in mammography enhances diagnostic accuracy, reduces unnecessary recalls, and supports more confident and efficient clinical decision-making, particularly by improving the performance of less-experienced radiologists in underserved and resource-limited settings where expert interpretation may be limited.
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.