dc.contributor.author | Martiniussen, Marit Almenning | |
dc.contributor.author | Larsen, Marthe | |
dc.contributor.author | Hovda, Tone | |
dc.contributor.author | Kristiansen, Merete U. | |
dc.contributor.author | Dahl, Fredrik Andreas | |
dc.contributor.author | Eikvil, Line | |
dc.contributor.author | Brautaset, Olav | |
dc.contributor.author | Bjørnerud, Atle | |
dc.contributor.author | Kristensen, Vessela N. | |
dc.contributor.author | Bergan, Marie Burns | |
dc.contributor.author | Hofvind, Solveig Sand-Hanssen | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-06T09:30:41Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-08-06T09:30:41Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025-02-05 | |
dc.description.abstract | Two deep learning–based artificial intelligence (AI) models, one commercially available and one in-house, showed good performance for stand-alone cancer detection on retrospective mammography screening data. AI markings on the mammograms corresponded well to the true cancer location.<p>
<p>Purpose - To evaluate cancer detection and marker placement accuracy of two artificial intelligence (AI) models developed for interpretation of screening mammograms.<p>
<p>Materials and Methods - This retrospective study included data from 129 434 screening examinations (all female patients; mean age, 59.2 years ± 5.8 [SD]) performed between January 2008 and December 2018 in BreastScreen Norway. Model A was commercially available and model B was an in-house model. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CIs were calculated. The study defined 3.2% and 11.1% of the examinations with the highest AI scores as positive, threshold 1 and 2, respectively. A radiologic review assessed location of AI markings and classified interval cancers as true or false negative.<p>
<p>Results - The AUC value was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.94) for model A and B when including screen-detected and interval cancers. Model A identified 82.5% (611 of 741) of the screen-detected cancers at threshold 1 and 92.4% (685 of 741) at threshold 2. Model B identified 81.8% (606 of 741) at threshold 1 and 93.7% (694 of 741) at threshold 2. The AI markings were correctly localized for all screen-detected cancers identified by both models and 82% (56 of 68) of the interval cancers for model A and 79% (54 of 68) for model B. At the review, 21.6% (45 of 208) of the interval cancers were identified at the preceding screening by either or both models, correctly localized and classified as false negative (n = 17) or with minimal signs of malignancy (n = 28).<p>
<p>Conclusion - Both AI models showed promising performance for cancer detection on screening mammograms. The AI markings corresponded well to the true cancer locations. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Martiniussen, Larsen, Hovda, Kristiansen, Dahl, Eikvil, Brautaset, Bjørnerud, Kristensen, Bergan, Hofvind. Performance of Two Deep Learning–based AI Models for Breast Cancer Detection and Localization on Screening Mammograms from BreastScreen Norway. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence (RAI). 2025;7(3) | en_US |
dc.identifier.cristinID | FRIDAID 2391664 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1148/ryai.240039 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2638-6100 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/37913 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Radiology: Artificial Intelligence (RAI) | |
dc.rights.accessRights | openAccess | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2025 The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.title | Performance of Two Deep Learning–based AI Models for Breast Cancer Detection and Localization on Screening Mammograms from BreastScreen Norway | en_US |
dc.type.version | acceptedVersion | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type | Tidsskriftartikkel | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |