High risk score of breast cancer by artificial intelligence (AI) on screening mammograms: a review of negative and cancer cases.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Marit A Martiniussen, Marie B Bergan, Merete U Kristiansen, Nataliia Moshina, Anne Sofie F Larsen, Marthe Larsen, Fredrik A Dahl, Solveig Hofvind
{"title":"High risk score of breast cancer by artificial intelligence (AI) on screening mammograms: a review of negative and cancer cases.","authors":"Marit A Martiniussen, Marie B Bergan, Merete U Kristiansen, Nataliia Moshina, Anne Sofie F Larsen, Marthe Larsen, Fredrik A Dahl, Solveig Hofvind","doi":"10.1007/s00330-026-12579-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate mammographic features associated with high artificial intelligence (AI) risk scores as provided by two AI models applied to screening mammograms.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 130,031 screening mammograms from 42,371 women attending BreastScreen Norway, 2008-2018. Two AI models (A and B) developed for cancer detection on screening mammograms were applied. An informed radiological review was conducted for mammograms within the highest 5% of AI risk scores by both models in two study samples: (1) High AI risk score, but no breast cancer detected within 6 years (n = 120), and (2) High AI risk score in mammograms with screen-detected cancers (n = 120). Mammographic density (BI-RADS a-d), features (mass, spiculated mass, asymmetry, architectural distortion, calcification alone, and density with calcification), and radiologists' interpretation scores (1-5) were analyzed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mammographic density was higher in sample 1 compared to sample 2 (BI-RADS d: 11% vs 3%, respectively). In sample 1, calcifications alone were the most frequent AI-marked feature (model A: 72%; model B: 68%), predominantly with amorphous morphology and a cluster distribution, and 76% were interpreted as benign by the radiologists (interpretation score 1). In sample 2, a spiculated mass was the most frequent mammographic feature among the screen-detected cancers (29%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mammograms assigned high AI risk scores exhibit distinct features depending on screening outcome. Systematic characterization of these features may help refine AI thresholds, improve specificity, reduce AI false-positive findings, and decrease the recall rate in breast cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Knowledge about mammographic features associated with high AI risk scores is essential for distinguishing cancer from non-cancer cases. Findings Calcifications were the dominant feature in non-cancers in screening mammograms with high AI risk score, whereas spiculated mass was the most frequent feature among cancers. Clinical relevance Calcifications in non-cancer screening mammograms with a high AI risk score were frequently interpreted as benign or probably benign by radiologists. This knowledge may help refine AI thresholds and thereby improve specificity and reduce false-positive results in mammographic screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-026-12579-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate mammographic features associated with high artificial intelligence (AI) risk scores as provided by two AI models applied to screening mammograms.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 130,031 screening mammograms from 42,371 women attending BreastScreen Norway, 2008-2018. Two AI models (A and B) developed for cancer detection on screening mammograms were applied. An informed radiological review was conducted for mammograms within the highest 5% of AI risk scores by both models in two study samples: (1) High AI risk score, but no breast cancer detected within 6 years (n = 120), and (2) High AI risk score in mammograms with screen-detected cancers (n = 120). Mammographic density (BI-RADS a-d), features (mass, spiculated mass, asymmetry, architectural distortion, calcification alone, and density with calcification), and radiologists' interpretation scores (1-5) were analyzed descriptively.

Results: Mammographic density was higher in sample 1 compared to sample 2 (BI-RADS d: 11% vs 3%, respectively). In sample 1, calcifications alone were the most frequent AI-marked feature (model A: 72%; model B: 68%), predominantly with amorphous morphology and a cluster distribution, and 76% were interpreted as benign by the radiologists (interpretation score 1). In sample 2, a spiculated mass was the most frequent mammographic feature among the screen-detected cancers (29%).

Conclusion: Mammograms assigned high AI risk scores exhibit distinct features depending on screening outcome. Systematic characterization of these features may help refine AI thresholds, improve specificity, reduce AI false-positive findings, and decrease the recall rate in breast cancer screening.

Key points: Question Knowledge about mammographic features associated with high AI risk scores is essential for distinguishing cancer from non-cancer cases. Findings Calcifications were the dominant feature in non-cancers in screening mammograms with high AI risk score, whereas spiculated mass was the most frequent feature among cancers. Clinical relevance Calcifications in non-cancer screening mammograms with a high AI risk score were frequently interpreted as benign or probably benign by radiologists. This knowledge may help refine AI thresholds and thereby improve specificity and reduce false-positive results in mammographic screening.

人工智能(AI)筛查乳房x线照片的乳腺癌高风险评分:阴性和癌症病例的回顾。
目的:研究应用于筛查乳房x线照片的两种人工智能模型提供的与高人工智能(AI)风险评分相关的乳房x线照片特征。材料和方法:本回顾性研究包括2008-2018年参加挪威乳房筛查的42371名妇女的130,031张乳房x线照片。应用了两种人工智能模型(A和B),用于筛查乳房x线照片的癌症检测。对两个研究样本中两种模型人工智能风险评分最高的5%的乳房x线照片进行知情的放射学回顾:(1)人工智能风险评分高,但6年内未发现乳腺癌(n = 120);(2)筛查出癌症的乳房x线照片中人工智能风险评分高(n = 120)。对乳房x线摄影密度(BI-RADS a-d)、特征(肿块、针状肿块、不对称、结构扭曲、单独钙化和钙化密度)和放射科医生的解释评分(1-5)进行描述性分析。结果:样本1的乳房x线摄影密度高于样本2 (BI-RADS分别为11%和3%)。在样本1中,钙化是最常见的ai标记特征(模型A: 72%;模型B: 68%),主要呈无定形形态和簇状分布,76%被放射科医生解释为良性(解释评分1)。在样本2中,在筛查到的癌症中,针状肿块是最常见的乳房x线摄影特征(29%)。结论:根据筛查结果,给予高AI风险评分的乳房x线照片表现出不同的特征。系统地描述这些特征可能有助于完善AI阈值,提高特异性,减少AI假阳性结果,并降低乳腺癌筛查中的召回率。了解与高AI风险评分相关的乳房x线摄影特征对于区分癌症和非癌症病例至关重要。结果高AI风险评分的乳房x线筛查中,钙化是非癌的主要特征,而肿瘤中最常见的特征是棘状肿块。在人工智能风险评分较高的非癌症筛查乳房x线照片中,钙化经常被放射科医生解释为良性或可能为良性。这一知识可能有助于完善人工智能阈值,从而提高特异性,减少乳房x线摄影筛查中的假阳性结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书