ReviewCancers2025
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Personalization in Breast Cancer Screening: From Population Models to Individualized Protocols.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a systematic review of evidence, clinical integration, and ethical implications in risk assessment tools.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- The role of artificial intelligence in precision medicine for breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- How Does ACR BI-RADSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Mammography: A Systematic Review of Methods, Evaluation Practices, and Clinical Readiness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Managing healthcare for female BRCA carriers in the population screening era: developing a harmonized national policy for surveillance and risk-reduction.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and breast cancer screening in Serbia: a dual-perspective qualitative study among radiologists and screening-aged women.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- From Semantic Modeling to Precision Radiotherapy: An AI Framework Linking Radiobiology, Oncology, and Public Health Integration.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in oncology: Current status and possibilities (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional breast cancer screening programs are predominantly age-based, applying uniform intervals and modalities across broad populations. While this model has reduced mortality, it entails harms-including overdiagnosis, false positives, and missed interval cancers-prompting interest in risk-stratified approaches. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a critical enabler of this paradigm shift. This narrative review examines how AI-driven tools are advancing breast cancer screening toward personalization, with a focus on mammographic risk models, multimodal risk prediction, and AI-enabled clinical decision support. We reviewed studies published from 2015 to 2025, prioritizing large cohorts, randomized trials, and prospective validations. AI-based mammographic risk models generally improve discrimination versus classical models and are being externally validated; however, evidence remains heterogeneous across subtypes and populations. Emerging multimodal models integrate genetics, clinical data, and imaging; AI is also being evaluated for triage and personalized intervals within clinical workflows. Barriers remain-explainability, regulatory validation, and equity. Widespread adoption will depend on prospective clinical benefit, regulatory alignment, and careful integration. Overall, AI-based mammographic risk models generally improve discrimination versus classical models and are being externally validated; however, evidence remains heterogeneous across molecular subtypes, with signals strongest for ER-positive disease and limited data for fast-growing and interval cancers. Prospective trials demonstrating outcome benefit and safe interval modification are still pending. Accordingly, adoption should proceed with safeguards, equity monitoring, and clear separation between risk prediction, lesion detection, triage, and decision-support roles.
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.