ArticleBMC cancer2022
Cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence versus polygenic risk score to guide breast cancer screening.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence tools in radiology: a systematic review.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of AI-assisted technologies in healthcare: A systematic review.Journal of food and drug analysis · 2025Pooled it
- Weighing the evidence on costs and benefits of polygenic risk-based approaches in clinical practice: A systematic review of economic evaluations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Explainable machine learning for breast cancer diagnosis from mammography and ultrasound images: a systematic review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence-based healthcare interventions: a systematic literature review of best practices in their conduct and reporting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Health economics evaluation of artificial intelligence in the field of oncology: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for breast cancer management.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Leveraging AI and Natural Compounds: Innovative Approaches in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- The value for money of artificial intelligence-empowered precision medicine: a systematic review and regression analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing gastrointestinal cancer research with artificial intelligence: From precision patient stratification to real-world evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Economic evaluation of personalised versus conventional risk assessment for women who have undergone testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes: a modelling study.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Risk-adjusted breast screening: an Australian perspective and considerations for the Western Pacific.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Future of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Cancer Care: A Global Cross-Sectional Survey of Researchers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Equity within AI systems: What can health leaders expect?Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Deep Learning Paradigm for Cardiovascular Disease/Stroke Risk Stratification in Parkinson's Disease Affected by COVID-19: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer vary across agencies, especially for women aged 40-49. Using artificial Intelligence (AI) to read mammography images has been shown to predict breast cancer risk with higher accuracy than alternative approaches including polygenic risk scores (PRS), raising the question whether AI-based screening is more cost-effective than screening based on PRS or existing guidelines. This study provides the first evidence to shed light on this important question.
methodsThis study is a model-based economic evaluation. We used a hybrid decision tree/microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies of mammography screening for women aged 40-49 (screening beyond age 50 follows existing guidelines). Six of these strategies were defined by combinations of risk prediction approaches (AI, PRS or family history) and screening frequency for low-risk women (no screening or biennial screening). The other two strategies involved annual screening for all women and no screening, respectively. Data used to populate the model were sourced from the published literature.
resultsRisk prediction using AI followed by no screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. It dominates (i.e., costs more and generates fewer quality adjusted life years (QALYs)) strategies for risk prediction using PRS followed by no screening or biennial screening for low-risk women, risk prediction using AI or family history followed by biennial screening for low-risk women, and annual screening for all women. It also extendedly dominates (i.e., achieves higher QALYs at a lower incremental cost per QALY) the strategy for risk prediction using family history followed by no screening for low-risk women. Meanwhile, it is cost-effective versus no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,755 per QALY gained.
conclusionsRisk prediction using AI followed by no breast cancer screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. This finding can be explained by AI's ability to identify high-risk women more accurately than PRS and family history (which reduces the possibility of delayed breast cancer diagnosis) and fewer false-positive diagnoses from not screening low-risk women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.