Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 15 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYInsights into imaging

Optimizing AI-assisted decision-making in mammography screening: focusing on uncertainties

7 more authors

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate an AI-based decision-support system for mammography interpretation, assessing its impact on diagnostic performance.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study analyzed 130,838 mammograms from 35,709 patients with confirmed follow-up outcomes across multiple centers, using the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDSM) for external validation. Representing one of the largest datasets from the Middle East, it evaluates model generalizability in underrepresented populations. An AI super-model incorporated separate UNet-based networks for lesion segmentation, a high-resolution model (4096) for calcifications, a multi-resolution ensemble (4096, 2048, 1024) for macro-scale lesions, and a risk-assessment model for malignancy prediction. Radiologists interpreted images under five scenarios: unaided, AI-assisted, AI as the final decision-maker in uncertain cases, union of radiologist and AI decisions in uncertain cases, and standalone AI.

Results: AI assistance significantly enhanced performance across all scenarios. Based on aggregated reader performance, AUC improved from 83.04% (95% CI: 79.8–86.3) unaided to 88.40% (95% CI: 85.6–91.2) in the union scenario ( p < 0.001). Sensitivity increased from 54.8% (95% CI: 48.6–61.0) to 83.9% (95% CI: 79.3–88.4) ( p < 0.001), and specificity rose from 83.6% (95% CI: 82.0–85.3) to 91.1% (95% CI: 89.8–92.4) ( p < 0.001). Multi-resolution segmentation effectively detected calcifications and challenging lesions. DDSM validation confirmed model robustness. AI showed particular promise in aiding less-experienced radiologists in underserved areas to improve early cancer detection.

Conclusions: AI in mammography interpretation improves diagnostic accuracy and reduces uncertainty, supporting early breast cancer detection and optimized screening workflows.

Key Points: Question Can an AI-based decision-support system improve the accuracy of mammography interpretation, reduce diagnostic uncertainty, and support less-experienced radiologists?

Findings In this retrospective multicenter study, AI-assisted mammography improved sensitivity and specificity, increased cancer detection, and reduced recalls and false positives.

Critical relevance statement AI integration in mammography enhances diagnostic accuracy, reduces unnecessary recalls, and supports more confident and efficient clinical decision-making, particularly by improving the performance of less-experienced radiologists in underserved and resource-limited settings where expert interpretation may be limited.

Related

  1. AI-assisted Decision-support Framework for Breast Density and Background Parenchymal Enhancement Assessment in Contrast-enhanced Mammography
    Graziella Di Grezia, Antonio Nazzaro, Luigi Schiavone +4
    Current Medical ImagingPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textMedical imaging & radiologyPMC
  2. Capillary hemangioma of the breast presenting as a new mass on screening mammography: A case report with imaging-pathology correlation
    Romuald Ferre, Anne Bartels, Cherie M. Kuzmiak
    Radiology case reportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Factors Influencing Adherence to Mammography Screening Guidelines Among Women From Diverse Cultural Backgrounds: A Systematic Review
    Antonia Christoforidou, Marianna Drakopoulou, Alexandra Mantoudi +5
    CureusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Determinants and barriers to mammography screening uptake among Bahraini women: a cross-sectional study in primary healthcare settings
    Fatema Habbash, Muna AlMohri, Aysha Waleed +6
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0OncologyCrossref
  5. Cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for breast cancer screening: a systematic literature review
    Supakorn Chansaengpetch, Lisa Stirk, Nigel Armstrong
    Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and newsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMCEurope PMCPMC
BibTeX
@article{ahmadinejad2026optimizing,
  title = {{Optimizing AI-assisted decision-making in mammography screening: focusing on uncertainties}},
  author = {Nasrin Ahmadinejad and Nahid Sadighi and Rassa Ghavami Modegh and Mehran Arab Ahmadi and Mohammadhosein Akhlaghpasand and Alireza Dizaji and Amin Rezaee and Maryam Rahmani and Arvin Arian and Fahimeh Zeinalkhani and Salome Maghsudlu and Saeedeh Shokri and Niloofar Pashaeifakhri and Hossein Ghanaati and Ali Sefidmouy and Mahdi Ghaznavi and Hamed Dashti and Hamid R. Rabiee and Masoumeh Gity},
  journal = {Insights into imaging},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1186/s13244-026-02411-4},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13661836},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Optimizing AI-assisted decision-making in mammography screening: focusing on uncertainties
AU  - Nasrin Ahmadinejad
AU  - Nahid Sadighi
AU  - Rassa Ghavami Modegh
AU  - Mehran Arab Ahmadi
AU  - Mohammadhosein Akhlaghpasand
AU  - Alireza Dizaji
AU  - Amin Rezaee
AU  - Maryam Rahmani
AU  - Arvin Arian
AU  - Fahimeh Zeinalkhani
AU  - Salome Maghsudlu
AU  - Saeedeh Shokri
AU  - Niloofar Pashaeifakhri
AU  - Hossein Ghanaati
AU  - Ali Sefidmouy
AU  - Mahdi Ghaznavi
AU  - Hamed Dashti
AU  - Hamid R. Rabiee
AU  - Masoumeh Gity
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/13
JO  - Insights into imaging
DO  - 10.1186/s13244-026-02411-4
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13661836
AB  - Objective: To evaluate an AI-based decision-support system for mammography interpretation, assessing its impact on diagnostic performance.  Materials and methods: This retrospective study analyzed 130,838 mammograms from 35,709 patients with confirmed follow-up outcomes across multiple centers, using the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDSM) for external validation. Representing one of the largest datasets from the Middle East, it evaluates model generalizability in underrepresented populations. An AI super-model incorporated separate UNet-based networks for lesion segmentation, a high-resolution model (4096) for calcifications, a multi-resolution ensemble (4096, 2048, 1024) for macro-scale lesions, and a risk-assessment model for malignancy prediction. Radiologists interpreted images under five scenarios: unaided, AI-assisted, AI as the final decision-maker in uncertain cases, union of radiologist and AI decisions in uncertain cases, and standalone AI.  Results: AI assistance significantly enhanced performance across all scenarios. Based on aggregated reader performance, AUC improved from 83.04% (95% CI: 79.8–86.3) unaided to 88.40% (95% CI: 85.6–91.2) in the union scenario ( p < 0.001). Sensitivity increased from 54.8% (95% CI: 48.6–61.0) to 83.9% (95% CI: 79.3–88.4) ( p < 0.001), and specificity rose from 83.6% (95% CI: 82.0–85.3) to 91.1% (95% CI: 89.8–92.4) ( p < 0.001). Multi-resolution segmentation effectively detected calcifications and challenging lesions. DDSM validation confirmed model robustness. AI showed particular promise in aiding less-experienced radiologists in underserved areas to improve early cancer detection.  Conclusions: AI in mammography interpretation improves diagnostic accuracy and reduces uncertainty, supporting early breast cancer detection and optimized screening workflows.  Key Points: Question Can an AI-based decision-support system improve the accuracy of mammography interpretation, reduce diagnostic uncertainty, and support less-experienced radiologists?  Findings In this retrospective multicenter study, AI-assisted mammography improved sensitivity and specificity, increased cancer detection, and reduced recalls and false positives.  Critical relevance statement AI integration in mammography enhances diagnostic accuracy, reduces unnecessary recalls, and supports more confident and efficient clinical decision-making, particularly by improving the performance of less-experienced radiologists in underserved and resource-limited settings where expert interpretation may be limited.
SN  - 1869-4101
ER  -