The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although some studies have shown increasing radiologists' mammography volumes improves performance, there is a lack of evidence specific to digital mammography and breast screening program performance targets. This study evaluates the relationship between digital screening volume and meeting performance targets. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 493 radiologists in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who interpreted 1,762,173 screening mammograms in participants ages 50-90 between 2014 and 2016. Associations between annual screening volume and meeting performance targets for abnormal call rate, positive predictive value (PPV), invasive cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, and specificity were modeled using mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most radiologists read 500-999 (36.7%) or 1,000-1,999 (31.0%) screens annually, and 18.5% read ≥2,000. Radiologists who read ≥2,000 annually were more likely to meet abnormal call rate (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.17-12.61), PPV (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.53-11.34), invasive CDR (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.50-11.46), and specificity (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.89-8.79) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. Radiologists reading 1,000-1,999 screens annually were more likely to meet PPV (OR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.22-4.40), invasive CDR (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.49-7.59) and specificity (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.04-3.84) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. No significant differences were observed for sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Annual reading volume requirements of 1,000 in Canada are supported as screening volume above 1,000 was strongly associated with achieving performance targets for nearly all measures. Increasing the minimum volume to 2,000 may further reduce the potential limitations of screening due to false positives, leading to improvements in overall breast screening program quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".