Artificial intelligence for triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms and workload reduction: A meta-analysis of a deep learning software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Deep learning (DL) has shown promising results for improving mammographic breast cancer diagnosis. However, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the breast cancer screening process has not yet been fully elucidated in terms of potential workload reduction. We aim to assess if AI-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms could reduce the radiologist's workload with non-inferior sensitivity. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies that evaluated AI algorithms on computer-aided triage of breast cancer screening mammograms. We extracted data from homogenous studies and performed a proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model to examine the radiologist's workload reduction (proportion of low-risk mammograms that could be theoretically ruled out from human's assessment) and the software's sensitivity to breast cancer detection. Results Thirteen studies were selected for full review, and three studies that used the same commercially available DL algorithm were included in the meta-analysis. In the 156,852 examinations included, the threshold of 7 was identified as optimal. With these parameters, radiologist workload decreased by 68.3% (95%CI 0.655–0.711, I² = 98.76%, p < 0.001), while achieving a sensitivity of 93.1% (95%CI 0.882–0.979, I² = 83.86%, p = 0.002) and a specificity of 68.7% (95% CI 0.684–0.723, I² = 97.5%, p < 0.01). Conclusions The deployment of DL computer-aided triage of breast cancer screening mammograms reduces the radiology workload while maintaining high sensitivity. Although the implementation of AI remains complex and heterogeneous, it is a promising tool to optimize healthcare resources.
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".