The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Mammography is the current standard for breast cancer screening. This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for diagnosis of breast cancer in mammography, and explore whether it could benefit radiologists by improving accuracy of diagnosis. METHODS: In this retrospective study, an AI algorithm was developed and validated with 170 230 mammography examinations collected from five institutions in South Korea, the USA, and the UK, including 36 468 cancer positive confirmed by biopsy, 59 544 benign confirmed by biopsy (8827 mammograms) or follow-up imaging (50 717 mammograms), and 74 218 normal. For the multicentre, observer-blinded, reader study, 320 mammograms (160 cancer positive, 64 benign, 96 normal) were independently obtained from two institutions. 14 radiologists participated as readers and assessed each mammogram in terms of likelihood of malignancy (LOM), location of malignancy, and necessity to recall the patient, first without and then with assistance of the AI algorithm. The performance of AI and radiologists was evaluated in terms of LOM-based area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and recall-based sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: The AI standalone performance was AUROC 0·959 (95% CI 0·952-0·966) overall, and 0·970 (0·963-0·978) in the South Korea dataset, 0·953 (0·938-0·968) in the USA dataset, and 0·938 (0·918-0·958) in the UK dataset. In the reader study, the performance level of AI was 0·940 (0·915-0·965), significantly higher than that of the radiologists without AI assistance (0·810, 95% CI 0·770-0·850; p<0·0001). With the assistance of AI, radiologists' performance was improved to 0·881 (0·850-0·911; p<0·0001). AI was more sensitive to detect cancers with mass (53 [90%] vs 46 [78%] of 59 cancers detected; p=0·044) or distortion or asymmetry (18 [90%] vs ten [50%] of 20 cancers detected; p=0·023) than radiologists. AI was better in detection of T1 cancers (73 [91%] vs 59 [74%] of 80; p=0·0039) or node-negative cancers (104 [87%] vs 88 [74%] of 119; p=0·0025) than radiologists. INTERPRETATION: The AI algorithm developed with large-scale mammography data showed better diagnostic performance in breast cancer detection compared with radiologists. The significant improvement in radiologists' performance when aided by AI supports application of AI to mammograms as a diagnostic support tool. FUNDING: Lunit.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
Ehteshami Bejnordi, B., Veta, M., Johannes van Diest, P., van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., Litjens, G., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., and the CAMELYON16 Consortium, Hermsen, M., Manson, Q. F., et al. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14585 · Cited by 3,293
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening
McKinney, S. M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G. S., Darzi, A., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6 · Cited by 3,287
Rodriguez-Ruiz, A., Lång, K., Gubern-Merida, A., Broeders, M., Gennaro, G., Clauser, P., Helbich, T. H., Chevalier, M., Tan, T., Mertelmeier, T., et al. (2019) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djy222 · Cited by 692
Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection
Lehman, C. D., Wellman, R. D., Buist, D. S. M., Kerlikowske, K., Tosteson, A. N. A., & Miglioretti, D. L. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231 · Cited by 678
Giger, M. L., Chan, H., & Boone, J. (2008) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.3013555 · Cited by 311
Cited by
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212
Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice
Alowais, S. A., Alghamdi, S. S., Alsuhebany, N., Alqahtani, T., Alshaya, A. I., Almohareb, S. N., Aldairem, A., Alrashed, M., Bin Saleh, K., Badreldin, H. A., et al. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z · Cited by 3,146
Swanson, K., Wu, E., Zhang, A., Alizadeh, A. A., & Zou, J. (2023) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.01.035 · Cited by 597
Lotter, W., Diab, A. R., Haslam, B., Kim, J. G., Grisot, G., Wu, E., Wu, K., Onieva, J. O., Boyer, Y., Boxerman, J. L., et al. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01174-9 · Cited by 423
Sechopoulos, I., Teuwen, J., & Mann, R. (2021) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.06.002 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, H.-E., Kim, H. H., Han, B.-K., Kim, K. H., Han, K., Nam, H., Lee, E. H., & Kim, E.-K.
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e138-e148
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3004691496
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 23.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30003-0
- The paper
- Kim, H.-E., Kim, H. H., Han, B.-K., Kim, K. H., Han, K., Nam, H., Lee, E. H., & Kim, E.-K. (2020). Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. The Lancet Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30003-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.