PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 17, 2025Acta Radiologica3 citations

Mammographic features in screening mammograms with high AI scores but a true-negative screening result

View Full Paper
HKHenrik Wethe KochMBMarie Burns BerganJGJonas Gjesvik

Key Points

  • 91.1% of high AI score examinations were classified as non-suspicious during expert review, suggesting AI's potential inaccuracies.
  • Among the reviewed cases, asymmetry and calcifications were the most common features, appearing in about 30% each.
  • The study spanned over a decade with 54,662 examinations analyzed using an AI system named Transpara v. 2.0.0.
  • Findings indicate that the majority of false positives may not require further evaluation in standard screening practices.

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in screen-reading of mammograms has shown promising results for cancer detection. However, less attention has been paid to the false positives generated by AI.PurposeTo investigate mammographic features in screening mammograms with high AI scores but a true-negative screening result.Material and MethodsIn this retrospective study, 54,662 screening examinations from BreastScreen Norway 2010-2022 were analyzed with a commercially available AI system (Transpara v. 2.0.0). An AI score of 1-10 indicated the suspiciousness of malignancy. We selected examinations with an AI score of 10, with a true-negative screening result, followed by two consecutive true-negative screening examinations. Of the 2,124 examinations matching these criteria, 382 random examinations underwent blinded consensus review by three experienced breast radiologists. The examinations were classified according to mammographic features, radiologist interpretation score (1-5), and mammographic breast density (BI-RADS 5th ed. a-d).ResultsThe reviews classified 91.1% (348/382) of the examinations as negative (interpretation score 1). All examinations (26/26) categorized as BI-RADS d were given an interpretation score of 1. Classification of mammographic features: asymmetry = 30.6% (117/382); calcifications = 30.1% (115/382); asymmetry with calcifications = 29.3% (112/382); mass = 8.9% (34/382); distortion = 0.8% (3/382); spiculated mass = 0.3% (1/382). For examinations with calcifications, 79.1% (91/115) were classified with benign morphology.ConclusionThe majority of false-positive screening examinations generated by AI were classified as non-suspicious in a retrospective blinded consensus review and would likely not have been recalled for further assessment in a real screening setting using AI as a decision support.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Koch et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d4567431b076d99fa5bd4fhttps://doi.org/10.1177/02841851251363697
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1How do AI markings on screening mammograms correspond to cancer location? An informed review of 270 breast cancer cases in BreastScreen Norway2024 · 13 citations
  2. 2Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis2023 · 195 citations
  3. 3Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries2024 · 25,401 citations
  4. 4Artificial intelligence in BreastScreen Norway: a retrospective analysis of a cancer-enriched sample including 1254 breast cancer cases2023 · 32 citations
  5. 5The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review2013 · 1,087 citations