Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40070418›Full record

ReviewPolish journal of radiology2025

Artificial intelligence versus radiologists in detecting early-stage breast cancer from mammograms: a meta-analysis of paradigm shifts.

Hashim Talib Hashim, Ahmed Qasim Mohammed Alhatemi, Motaz Daraghma, Hossam Tharwat Ali, Mudassir Ahmad Khan, Fatimah Abdullah Sulaiman, Zahraa Hussein Ali, Mohanad Ahmed Sahib, Ahmed Dheyaa Al-Obaidi, Ammar Al-Obaidi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polish journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hashim Talib HashimUniversity of Warith Al-Anbiyaa, College of Medicine, Karbala, Iraq.
Ahmed Qasim Mohammed AlhatemiAl-Nassiryah Teaching Hospital, Thi Qar, Iraq.
Motaz DaraghmaFaculty of Medicine, Arab American University of Palestine, Jenin, Palestine.
Hossam Tharwat AliQena Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt.
Mudassir Ahmad KhanDepartment of Physiology, Shalamar Institute of Health Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
Fatimah Abdullah SulaimanAl-Nassiryah Teaching Hospital, Nassiryah, Iraq.
Zahraa Hussein AliUniversity of Baghdad, College of Medicine, Baghdad, Iraq.
Mohanad Ahmed SahibDepartment of Radiological Techniques, College of Health and Medical Techniques, Al-Mustaqbal University, Babylon, Iraq.
Ahmed Dheyaa Al-ObaidiMBChB, University of Baghdad, College of Medicine, Baghdad, Iraq.
Ammar Al-ObaidiDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Early detection of breast cancer is crucial for improving patient outcomes. With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), there is growing interest in its potential to assist radiologists in interpreting mammograms for early cancer detection. AI algorithms offer the promise of increased accuracy and efficiency in identifying subtle signs of breast cancer, potentially complementing the expertise of radiologists and enhancing the screening process for early-stage breast cancer detection. Material and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and select original research reports on breast cancer diagnosis by artificial intelligence versus conventional radiologists in using mammograms in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were analysed with Review Manager version 5.4. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 studies with data from a total of 120,950 patients. Regarding the sensitivity of AI, the pooled analysis of 6 studies with sensitivities ranging from 0.70 to 0.89 yielded a sensitivity of 0.85. However, the sensitivity of the radiologists ranged from 0.63 to 0.85, with an overall sensitivity of 0.77. As for specificity, both radiologists and AI groups had closer results. Conclusions: The comparison between AI systems and radiologists in detecting early-stage breast cancer from mammograms highlights the potential of AI as a valuable tool in breast cancer screening. While AI algorithms have shown promising results in terms of accuracy and efficiency, they should be viewed as complementary to radiologists rather than replacements.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedetecting early-stage breast cancerradiologists

Identifiers

PMID40070418
PMCPMC11891547

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.