The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate independent double reading in mammography screening and, specifically, the effect on breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic studies of 11,343 women, aged 41-75 years, who participated in a population-based screening program were independently screened by two experienced radiologists. A retrospective analysis also was performed from notations made for patient recalls. RESULTS: Including follow-up of recalled women, 131 surgical biopsies were performed, which resulted in 76 histologically proved breast cancers. Fifty-six cancerous lesions were detected by both screeners. One screener detected 14 cancerous lesions alone, and the other detected six alone. Of the cancerous lesions detected by only one screener, 85% were stage 0 or 1, compared with 59% of those detected by both screeners. Double reading detected 15% (95% confidence interval, +/- 7%) more cancer cases with an almost unchanged positive predictive value of 0.6. CONCLUSION: Independent double reading does significantly increase sensitivity of mammography screening.
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
Detection of Breast Cancer with Mammography: Effect of an Artificial Intelligence Support System
Rodríguez-Ruiz, A., Krupinski, E., Mordang, J.-J., Schilling, K., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Sechopoulos, I., & Mann, R. M. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018181371 · Cited by 602
Potential Contribution of Computer-aided Detection to the Sensitivity of Screening Mammography
Warren Burhenne, L. J., Wood, S. A., D'Orsi, C. J., Feig, S. A., Kopans, D. B., O'Shaughnessy, K. F., Sickles, E. A., Tabar, L., Vyborny, C. J., & Castellino, R. A. (2000) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma15554 · Cited by 554
The frequency of missed breast cancers in women participating in a high-risk MRI screening program
Vreemann, S., Gubern-Merida, A., Lardenoije, S., Bult, P., Karssemeijer, N., Pinker, K., & Mann, R. M. (2018) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4688-z · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Thurfjell, E. L., Lernevall, K. A., & Taube, A. A.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1994-04
- Volume
- 191
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 241-244
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2098985260
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.95
- 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: Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134580
- The paper
- Thurfjell, E. L., Lernevall, K. A., & Taube, A. A. (1994). Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134580
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.
