ArticleKorean journal of radiology2026
Comparison of Digital Mammography Plus Full ABUS Review and Digital Mammography Plus Selective ABUS Review Guided by ABUS Artificial Intelligence-Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Breast Cancer Screening.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Breast Ultrasound in Dense-Breast Screening: Beyond Additional Cancer Detection.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Response to "Automated Breast Ultrasound in Dense-Breast Screening: Beyond Additional Cancer Detection".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- BI-RADS v2025 for breast ultrasound: key updates and Asian perspectives.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two breast cancer screening strategies, digital mammography (DM) plus radiologist-interpreted automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and DM plus selective ABUS review, in which only examinations positive for DM or flagged by ABUS artificial intelligence-computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) were reviewed by radiologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included asymptomatic women who underwent DM and ABUS screening for breast cancer between March 2022 and March 2023. The radiologists' interpretations of DM and ABUS without AI assistance (DM + ABUS_radiologist) were collected from the clinical radiology reports. A selective DM plus ABUS reading strategy was simulated, in which only cases interpreted as positive in the radiologist's DM report or flagged by retrospectively applied ABUS AI-CAD were triaged for further evaluation through a full review by radiologists (DM + ABUS_AI-CAD). The cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were calculated and compared between DM + ABUS_radiologist and DM + ABUS_AI-CAD groups using the McNemar's test.
resultsAmong 2,275 women (mean age, 56.1 ± 8.6 years), 12 cancers were diagnosed. The sensitivity, CDR and AIR for DM + ABUS_radiologist was 83.3% (10/12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.6-97.9), 4.4 (10/2,275; 95% CI: 2.1-8.1) per 1,000 screening examinations and 16.7% (379/2,275; 95% CI: 15.1-18.3), respectively. DM + ABUS_AI-CAD triaged 84.0% (1,910/2,275) of the examinations as negative in both DM reports and retrospectively applied ABUS AI-CAD, requiring radiologist reassessment in only 16.0% (365/2,275). This approach reduced the AIR to 7.3% (167/2,275) and improved the specificity from 83.7% (1,894/2,263) to 93.1% (2,107/2,263) (all
conclusionAn AI-CAD-assisted selective ABUS reading strategy reduces unnecessary recalls and improves specificity, which may help optimize reading priorities and reduce the reading workload while maintaining cancer detection performance.
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.