ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Diagnostic Performance and Concordance of a BI-RADS-Output AI System in Mammography: A Retrospective Study of Radiologists-AI Collaboration.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of breast cancer using mammography and ultrasonography is influenced by inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) models for breast classification have been investigated, but limited reports exist on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-output AI systems. This study attempted to assess a BI-RADS-output AI system by comparing breast cancer detection rates among radiologist-only, AI-only, and combined interpretations, while also focusing on the AI's ability to identify cancers missed by radiologists and analyzing diagnostic concordance concerning imaging features and BI-RADS categories. A retrospective analysis was performed on 331 lesions from 321 consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent preoperative digital mammography and ultrasonography. McNemar's test was used to find the detection rates, and chi-square/Fisher's test, Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) analysis, and Kappa statistics were used to verify the diagnostic performance. The combined radiologist-AI interpretation achieved the highest cancer detection rate of 90.6%, which was higher than the radiologist's rate of 87.6% and the AI's rate of 84.0% (P < 0.05). The advantage was especially evident for BI-RADS 4B lesions, where AI alone decreased to 54.4%, while the combined method increased to 81.8%. AI found tumors that radiologists missed, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.840. There was a strong agreement for microcalcifications (κ = 0.827), but only a weak to moderate agreement for mass morphology and final BI-RADS classification (κ = 0.142-0.414). Although AI-radiologist agreement varied across different imaging features, their complementary strengths enabled improved cancer detection performance, supporting the role of BI-RADS-output AI systems as clinical decision-support tools rather than replacements for radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920073What 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.