Breast density estimation is an important part of breast cancer risk assessment, as mammographic density is associated with risk. However, density assessed by multiple experts can be subject to high inter-observer variability, so automated methods are increasingly used. We investigate the inter-reader variability and risk prediction for expert assessors and a deep learning approach. Screening data from a cohort of 1328 women, case-control matched, was used to compare between two expert readers and between a single reader and a deep learning model, Manchester artificial intelligence - visual analog scale (MAI-VAS). Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the variability and matched concordance index to assess risk. Although the mean differences for the two experiments were alike, the limits of agreement between MAI-VAS and a single reader are substantially lower at +SD (standard deviation) 21 (95% CI: 19.65, 21.69) -SD 22 (95% CI: <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mo>-</mo> <mn>22.71</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mo>-</mo> <mn>20.68</mn></mrow> </math> ) than between two expert readers +SD 31 (95% CI: 32.08, 29.23) -SD 29 (95% CI: <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mo>-</mo> <mn>29.94</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mo>-</mo> <mn>27.09</mn></mrow> </math> ). In addition, breast cancer risk discrimination for the deep learning method and density readings from a single expert was similar, with a matched concordance of 0.628 (95% CI: 0.598, 0.658) and 0.624 (95% CI: 0.595, 0.654), respectively. The automatic method had a similar inter-view agreement to experts and maintained consistency across density quartiles. The artificial intelligence breast density assessment tool MAI-VAS has a better inter-observer agreement with a randomly selected expert reader than that between two expert readers. Deep learning-based density methods provide consistent density scores without compromising on breast cancer risk discrimination.

Breast cancer risk depends on an accurate assessment of breast density due to lesion masking. Although governed by standardized guidelines, radiologist assessment of breast density is still highly variable. Automated breast density assessment tools leverage deep learning but are limited by model robustness and interpretability. We assessed the robustness of a feature selection methodology (RFE-SHAP) for classifying breast density grades using tissue-specific radiomic features extracted from raw central projections of digital breast tomosynthesis screenings ( <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> <msub><mrow><mi>n</mi></mrow> <mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>651</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> <msub><mrow><mi>n</mi></mrow> <mrow><mi>II</mi></mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>100</mn></mrow> </math> ). RFE-SHAP leverages traditional and explainable AI methods to identify highly predictive and influential features. A simple logistic regression (LR) classifier was used to assess classification performance, and unsupervised clustering was employed to investigate the intrinsic separability of density grade classes. LR classifiers yielded cross-validated areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUCs) per density grade of [ <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>A</mi></mrow> </math> : <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>0.909</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.032</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>B</mi></mrow> </math> : <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>0.858</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.027</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>C</mi></mrow> </math> : <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>0.927</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.013</mn></mrow> </math> , <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow> </math> : <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>0.890</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.089</mn></mrow> </math> ] and an AUC of <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mn>0.936</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.016</mn></mrow> </math> for classifying patients as nondense or dense. In external validation, we observed per density grade AUCs of [ <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>A</mi></mrow> </math> : 0.880, <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>B</mi></mrow> </math> : 0.779, <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>C</mi></mrow> </math> : 0.878, <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow> </math> : 0.673] and nondense/dense AUC of 0.823. Unsupervised clustering highlighted the ability of these features to characterize different density grades. Our RFE-SHAP feature selection methodology for classifying breast tissue density generalized well to validation datasets after accounting for natural class imbalance, and the identified radiomic features properly captured the progression of density grades. Our results potentiate future research into correlating selected radiomic features with clinical descriptors of breast tissue density.

<i>"Just Accepted" papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in <i>Radiology: Artificial Intelligence</i>. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review before it is published in its final version. Please note that during production of the final copyedited article, errors may be discovered which could affect the content</i>. The MammosighTR dataset, derived from Türkiye's national breast cancer screening mammography program, provides BI-RADS-labeled mammograms with detailed annotations on breast composition and lesion quadrant location, which may be useful for developing and testing AI models in breast cancer detection. ©RSNA, 2025.

This review synthesizes current evidence regarding optimal breast cancer screening strategies for women with dense breasts, a population at increased risk due to decreased mammographic sensitivity. A systematic literature review was performed in accordance with PRISMA criteria, covering MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science until May 2025. The analysis examines advanced imaging techniques such as digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), assessing their effectiveness in addressing the shortcomings of traditional mammography in dense breast tissue. The review rigorously evaluates the incorporation of risk stratification models, such as the BCSC, in customizing screening regimens, in conjunction with innovative technologies like liquid biopsy and artificial intelligence-based image analysis for improved risk prediction. A key emphasis is placed on the heterogeneity in international screening guidelines and the challenges in translating research findings to diverse clinical settings, particularly in resource-constrained environments. The discussion includes ethical implications regarding compulsory breast density notification and the possibility of intensifying disparities in health care. The review ultimately encourages the development of evidence-based, context-specific guidelines that facilitate equitable access to effective breast cancer screening for all women with dense breasts.

To determine whether an AI system can identify breast cancer risk in interval breast cancer (IBC) screening mammograms. IBC screening mammograms from a Swiss screening program were retrospectively analyzed by radiologists/an AI system. Radiologists determined whether the IBC mammogram showed human visible signs of breast cancer (potentially missed IBCs) or not (IBCs without retrospective abnormalities). The AI system provided a case score and a prognostic risk category per mammogram. 119 IBC cases (mean age 57.3 (5.4)) were available with complete retrospective evaluations by radiologists/the AI system. 82 (68.9%) were classified as IBCs without retrospective abnormalities and 37 (31.1%) as potentially missed IBCs. 46.2% of all IBCs received a case score ≥ 25, 25.2% ≥ 50, and 13.4% ≥ 75. Of the 25.2% of the IBCs ≥ 50 (vs. 13.4% of a no breast cancer population), 45.2% had not been discussed during a consensus conference, reflecting 11.4% of all IBC cases. The potentially missed IBCs received significantly higher case scores and risk classifications than IBCs without retrospective abnormalities (case score mean: 54.1 vs. 23.1; high risk: 48.7% vs. 14.7%; p < 0.05). 13.4% of the IBCs without retrospective abnormalities received a case score ≥ 50, of which 62.5% had not been discussed during a consensus conference. An AI system can identify IBC screening mammograms with a higher risk for breast cancer, particularly in potentially missed IBCs but also in some IBCs without retrospective abnormalities where radiologists did not see anything, indicating its ability to improve mammography screening quality. Question AI presents a promising opportunity to enhance breast cancer screening in general, but evidence is missing regarding its ability to reduce interval breast cancers. Findings The AI system detected a high risk of breast cancer in most interval breast cancer screening mammograms where radiologists retrospectively detected abnormalities. Clinical relevance Utilization of an AI system in mammography screening programs can identify breast cancer risk in many interval breast cancer screening mammograms and thus potentially reduce the number of interval breast cancers.

Breast cancer became the primary cause of cancer-related deaths among women year by year. Early detection and accurate prediction of breast cancer play a crucial role in strengthening the quality of human life. Many scientists have concentrated on analyzing and conducting the development of many algorithms and progressing computer-aided diagnosis applications. Whereas many research have been conducted, feature research on cancer diagnosis is rare, especially regarding predicting the desired features by providing and feeding breast cancer features into the system. In this regard, this paper proposed a Breast Cancer Prediction (RF-BCP) algorithm based on Random Forest by taking inputs to predict cancer. For the experiment of the proposed algorithm, two datasets were utilized namely Breast Cancer dataset and a curated mammography dataset, and also compared the accuracy of the proposed algorithm with SVM, Gaussian NB, and KNN algorithms. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm can predict well and outperform other existing machine learning algorithms to support decision-making.

Breast cancer is a major cause of mortality among women globally. While mammography remains the gold standard for detection, its interpretation is often limited by radiologist variability and the challenge of differentiating benign and malignant lesions. The study explores the use of Auto- Sklearn, an automated machine learning (AutoML) framework, for breast tumor classification based on mammographic radiomic features. 244 mammographic images were enhanced using Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE) and segmented with Active Contour Method (ACM). Thirty-seven radiomic features, including first-order statistics, Gray-Level Co-occurance Matrix (GLCM) texture and shape features were extracted and standardized. Auto-Sklearn was employed to automate model selection, hyperparameter tuning and ensemble construction. The dataset was divided into 80% training and 20% testing set. The initial Auto-Sklearn model achieved an 88.71% accuracy on the training set and 55.10% on the testing sets. After the resampling strategy was applied, the accuracy for the training set and testing set increased to 95.26% and 76.16%, respectively. The Receiver Operating Curve and Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC) for the standard and resampling strategy of Auto-Sklearn were 0.660 and 0.840, outperforming conventional models, demonstrating its efficiency in automating radiomic classification tasks. The findings underscore Auto-Sklearn's ability to automate and enhance tumor classification performance using handcrafted radiomic features. Limitations include dataset size and absence of clinical metadata. This study highlights the application of Auto-Sklearn as a scalable, automated and clinically relevant tool for breast cancer classification using mammographic radiomics.

Recent prospective studies have shown that AI may be integrated in double-reader settings to increase cancer detection. The ScreenTrustCAD study was conducted at the breast radiology department at the Capio S:t Göran Hospital where AI is now implemented in clinical practice. This study reports on how the hospital prepared by exploring risks from an enterprise risk management perspective, i.e., applying a holistic and proactive perspective, and developed risk mitigation actions. The study was conducted as an integral part of the preparations before implementing AI in a breast imaging department. Collaborative ideation sessions were conducted with personnel at the hospital, either directly or indirectly involved with AI, to identify risks. Two external experts with competencies in cybersecurity, machine learning, and the ethical aspects of AI, were interviewed as a complement. The risks identified were analyzed according to an Enterprise Risk Management framework, adopted for healthcare, that assumes risks to be emerging from eight different domains. Finally, appropriate risk mitigation actions were identified and discussed. Twenty-three risks were identified covering seven of eight risk domains, in turn generating 51 suggested risk mitigation actions. Not only does the study indicate the emergence of patient safety risks, but it also shows that there are operational, strategic, financial, human capital, legal, and technological risks. The risks with most suggested mitigation actions were ‘Radiographers unable to answer difficult questions from patients’, ‘Increased risk that patient-reported symptoms are missed by the single radiologist’, ‘Increased pressure on the single reader knowing they are the only radiologist to catch a mistake by AI’, and ‘The performance of the AI algorithm might deteriorate’. Before a clinical integration of AI, hospitals should expand, identify, and address risks beyond immediate patient safety by applying comprehensive and proactive risk management. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-025-13176-9.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a robust framework for breast cancer diagnosis by integrating advanced segmentation and classification approaches. Transformer-based and U-Net segmentation models were combined with radiomic feature extraction and machine learning classifiers to improve segmentation precision and classification accuracy in mammographic images.Materials and MethodsA multi-center dataset of 8000 mammograms (4200 normal, 3800 abnormal) was used. Segmentation was performed using Transformer-based and U-Net models, evaluated through Dice Coefficient (DSC), Intersection over Union (IoU), Hausdorff Distance (HD95), and Pixel-Wise Accuracy. Radiomic features were extracted from segmented masks, with Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) employed to select significant features. Classifiers including Logistic Regression, XGBoost, CatBoost, and a Stacking Ensemble model were applied to classify tumors into benign or malignant. Classification performance was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, F1 score, and AUC-ROC. SHAP analysis validated feature importance, and Q-value heatmaps evaluated statistical significance.ResultsThe Transformer-based model achieved superior segmentation results with DSC (0.94 ± 0.01 training, 0.92 ± 0.02 test), IoU (0.91 ± 0.01 training, 0.89 ± 0.02 test), HD95 (3.0 ± 0.3 mm training, 3.3 ± 0.4 mm test), and Pixel-Wise Accuracy (0.96 ± 0.01 training, 0.94 ± 0.02 test), consistently outperforming U-Net across all metrics. For classification, Transformer-segmented features with the Stacking Ensemble achieved the highest test results: 93% accuracy, 92% sensitivity, 93% F1 score, and 95% AUC. U-Net-segmented features achieved lower metrics, with the best test accuracy at 84%. SHAP analysis confirmed the importance of features like Gray-Level Non-Uniformity and Zone Entropy.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the superiority of Transformer-based segmentation integrated with radiomic feature selection and robust classification models. The framework provides a precise and interpretable solution for breast cancer diagnosis, with potential for scalability to 3D imaging and multimodal datasets.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted digital mammography (AI-DM) compared to conventional biennial breast cancer digital mammography screening (cDM) with double reading of screening mammograms, and to investigate the change in cost-effectiveness based on four different sub-strategies of AI-DM. A decision-analytic state-transition Markov model was used to analyse the decision of whether to use cDM or AI-DM in breast cancer screening. In this Markov model, one-year cycles were used, and the analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective with a lifetime horizon. In the model, we analysed 1000 hypothetical individuals attending mammography screenings assessed with AI-DM compared with 1000 hypothetical individuals assessed with cDM. The total costs, including both screening-related costs and breast cancer-related costs, were €3,468,967 and €3,528,288 for AI-DM and cDM, respectively. AI-DM resulted in a cost saving of €59,320 compared to cDM. Per 1000 individuals, AI-DM gained 10.8 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to cDM. Gained QALYs at a lower cost means that the AI-DM screening strategy was dominant compared to cDM. Break-even occurred at the second screening at age 42 years. This analysis showed that AI-assisted mammography for biennial breast cancer screening in a Swedish population of women aged 40-74 years is a cost-saving strategy compared to a conventional strategy using double human screen reading. Further clinical studies are needed, as scenario analyses showed that other strategies, more dependent on AI, are also cost-saving. Question To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AI-DM in comparison to conventional biennial breast cDM screening. Findings AI-DM is cost-effective, and the break-even point occurred at the second screening at age 42 years. Clinical relevance The implementation of AI is clearly cost-effective as it reduces the total cost for the healthcare system and simultaneously results in a gain in QALYs.