The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Abstract
Previous trials, limited in many respects, have not found digital mammography to be significantly more accurate than the standard film method. A total of 42,760 asymptomatic women seen at 33 sites in the United States and Canada requested screening mammography and underwent both film and digital examinations. Two radiologists independently interpreted the film and digital mammograms. All participants either had breast biopsy within 15 months after evaluation or had a follow-up mammogram 10 months or longer after entry to the study. The results were assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Both digital and film mammograms were positive in 0.5% of women. Another 2.2% had only a positive digital study, whereas 1.9% had only a positive film study. In the remaining women, approximately 95% of the total, both imaging studies were negative. Of 335 breast cancers diagnosed within 455 days after entry to the study, approximately three fourths were found within a year after evaluation. There were no substantial differences between the digital and film findings with respect to histology or stage of disease. The area under the curve was similar for the 2 studies and was not influenced by race or the risk of breast cancer. Digital mammography did, however, perform significantly better than the film method in women less than 50 years of age, in those having heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. The digital and film methods performed equally well in women age 50 years and older, those with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular densities, and those who were postmenopausal.
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
Cited by
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
Berg, W. A. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151 · Cited by 1,526
Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Wang, L. (2017) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s17071572 · Cited by 549
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Pisano, E. D., Hendrick, R. E., Yaffe, M. J., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Cormack, J. B., Hanna, L. A., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L. W., et al. (2008) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2461070200 · Cited by 464
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D???Orsi, C., Jong, R., & Rebner, M.
- Venue
- Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 178
- ISSN
- 0029-7828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2568337645
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 45.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ogx.0000201894.94616.71
- The paper
- Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., Conant, E. F., Fajardo, L. L., Bassett, L., D???Orsi, C., Jong, R., & Rebner, M. (2006). Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0000201894.94616.71
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.