Comparison of mammography AI algorithms with a clinical risk model for 5-year breast cancer risk prediction: an observational study
Open accessAbstract
Background Although several clinical breast cancer risk models are used to guide screening and prevention, they have only moderate discrimination. Purpose To compare selected existing mammography artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model for prediction of 5-year risk. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-cohort study included data in women with a negative screening mammographic examination (no visible evidence of cancer) in 2016, who were followed until 2021 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Women with prior breast cancer or a highly penetrant gene mutation were excluded. Of the 324 009 eligible women, a random subcohort was selected, regardless of cancer status, to which all additional patients with breast cancer were added. The index screening mammographic examination was used as input for five AI algorithms to generate continuous scores that were compared with the BCSC clinical risk score. Risk estimates for incident breast cancer 0 to 5 years after the initial mammographic examination were calculated using a time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results The subcohort included 13 628 patients, of whom 193 had incident cancer. Incident cancers in eligible patients (additional 4391 of 324 009) were also included. For incident cancers at 0 to 5 years, the time-dependent AUC for BCSC was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.62). AI algorithms had higher time-dependent AUCs than did BCSC, ranging from 0.63 to 0.67 (Bonferroni-adjusted P < .0016). Time-dependent AUCs for combined BCSC and AI models were slightly higher than AI alone (AI with BCSC time-dependent AUC range, 0.66–0.68; Bonferroni-adjusted P < .0016). Conclusion When using a negative screening examination, AI algorithms performed better than the BCSC risk model for predicting breast cancer risk at 0 to 5 years. Combined AI and BCSC models further improved prediction. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.
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
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.
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?
AI risk prediction algorithms have outperformed traditional breast cancer risk models.
“These AI risk prediction algorithms have been shown to outperform traditional risk models (13,14)”
From Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 98
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Efron B, Tibshirani R. Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Con- fidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy. Stat Sci 1986;1(1):54-75.
- Authors
- Arasu, V. A., Habel, L. A., Achacoso, N. S., Buist, D. S. M., Cord, J. B., Esserman, L. J., Hylton, N. M., Glymour, M. M., Kornak, J., Kushi, L. H., Lewis, D. A., Liu, V. X., Lydon, C. M., Miglioretti, D. L., Navarro, D. A., Pu, A., Shen, L., Sieh, W., Yoon, H.-C., & Lee, C.
- Affiliations
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2023-06-01
- Volume
- 307
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e222733-e222733
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- PMC
- PMC10315521
- OpenAlex
- W4379508575
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 13
- FWCI
- 18.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA264987)
- National Institutes of Health (U01 CA225427)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › 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
- breast cancer risk prediction, time-dependent AUC, breast cancer surveillance
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Retrospective Studies, Cohort Studies, 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