CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 678Digital Radiography and Breast ImagingAI in cancer detectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection

Open access
Lehman, Constance D., Wellman, Robert D., Buist, Diana S. M., Kerlikowske, Karla, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Miglioretti, Diana L.·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231PMC PMC4836172
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD. RESULTS: Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 678

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lehman, C. D., Wellman, R. D., Buist, D. S. M., Kerlikowske, K., Tosteson, A. N. A., & Miglioretti, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Lehman, Constance D.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
175
Issue
11
Pages
1828
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231
PMC
PMC4836172
OpenAlex
W1917647701
Cited by
678
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
FWCI
20.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (HHSN261201100031C, U54CA163303, P30CA023108, P01CA154292)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
computer-aided detection, digital mammography, breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy, mammography sensitivity, screen-detected breast cancer, interval breast cancer, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, community practice, radiologist interpretation, breast cancer detection rate, mammography quality assurance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Registries, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review