Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,012

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program

Skaane, Per, Bandos, Andriy I., Gullien, Randi, Eben, Ellen B., Ekseth, Ulrika, Haakenaasen, Unni, Izadi, Mina, Jebsen, Ingvild N., Jahr, Gunnar, Krager, Mona, Niklason, Loren T., Hofvind, Solveig, Gur, David·2013·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS: Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.12121373

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

See all 1,012

Metadata

Authors
Skaane, P., Bandos, A. I., Gullien, R., Eben, E. B., Ekseth, U., Haakenaasen, U., Izadi, M., Jebsen, I. N., Jahr, G., Krager, M., Niklason, L. T., Hofvind, S., & Gur, D.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2013-04
Volume
267
Issue
1
Pages
47-56
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2111066681
Cited by
1,012
References
1
FWCI
90.37
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: Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.12121373
The paper
Skaane, P., Bandos, A. I., Gullien, R., Eben, E. B., Ekseth, U., Haakenaasen, U., Izadi, M., Jebsen, I. N., Jahr, G., Krager, M., Niklason, L. T., Hofvind, S., & Gur, D. (2013). Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373

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.