Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2025 Jul;316(1):e243688.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.243688.

Influence of AI Decision Support on Radiologists' Performance and Visual Search in Screening Mammography

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Influence of AI Decision Support on Radiologists' Performance and Visual Search in Screening Mammography

Jessie J J Gommers et al. Radiology. 2025 Jul.

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) decision support may improve radiologist performance during screening mammography interpretation, but its effect on radiologists' visual search behavior remains unclear. Purpose To compare radiologist performance and visual search patterns when reading screening mammograms with and without an AI decision support system. Materials and Methods In this retrospective multireader multicase study, 12 breast screening radiologists with 4-32 years of experience (median, 12 years) from 10 institutions evaluated screening mammograms acquired between September 2016 and May 2019. Assessments were conducted unaided and with a Food and Drug Administration-approved, European Commission-marked AI decision support system, which assigns a region suspicion score from 1 to 100, with 100 indicating the highest malignancy likelihood. An eye tracker monitored readers' eye movements. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity between unaided and AI-assisted reading were compared using multireader multicase analysis software. Reading times, breast fixation coverage (percentage breast covered by fixations within 2.5° visual angle radius), fixation time, and time to first fixation within the lesion region were compared using bootstrap resampling (n = 20 000). Results Mammography examinations (75 with breast cancer, 75 without breast cancer) from 150 women (median age, 55 years [IQR, 50-63 years]; age range, 49-72 years) were read. The mean AUC was higher with AI support versus unaided reading (unaided, 0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.96]; AI-supported, 0.97 [95% CI: 0.95, 0.98]; P < .001). There was no evidence of a difference in mean sensitivity (81.7% [735 of 900 readings] vs 87.2% [785 of 900]; P = .06), specificity (89.0% [801 of 900] vs 91.1% [820 of 900]; P = .46), or reading time (29.4 vs 30.8 seconds; P = .33). Breast fixation coverage was lower with AI support (11.1% vs 9.5% of breast area; P = .004), while fixation time in the lesion region was higher (4.4 vs 5.4 seconds; P = .006). There was no evidence of a difference in time to first fixation within the lesion region (3.4 vs 3.8 seconds; P = .13). Conclusion Radiologists improved their breast cancer detection accuracy when reading mammography with AI support, spending more fixation time on suspicious areas and less on the rest of the breast, indicating a more efficient search. © RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Wolfe in this issue.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of conflicts of interest: J.J.J.G. Associate editor for Radiology In Training. S.D.V. No relevant relationships. K.M.D. No relevant relationships. C.J.v.R. No relevant relationships. A.F.v.R. No relevant relationships. J.B.H. No relevant relationships. D.B.N. No relevant relationships. L.E.M.D. No relevant relationships. M.P.E. Grant from the National Institutes of Health; member of the U.S. National Academies Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences. C.K.A. Grants from the National Institutes of Health; stock options in Izotropic. M.J.M.B. Grants to institution from ScreenPoint Medical, Sectra Benelux, Hologic, Volpara Solutions, Lunit, and iCAD; speaker fees and travel support to institution from Hologic and Siemens. I.S. Institutional research agreements with Siemens Healthcare, Canon Medical, ScreenPoint Medical, Sectra Benelux, Volpara Solutions, Lunit, and iCAD; payment to institution for lectures from Canon Medical Systems; support for attending meetings to institution from Canon Medical Systems; member of the Radiology editorial board; stock options in Koning; scientific advisory board member for Koning.

References

    1. Hickman SE , Woitek R , Le EPV , et al . Machine learning for workflow applications in screening mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis . Radiology 2022. ; 302 ( 1 ): 88 – 104 . - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yoon JH , Strand F , Baltzer PAT , et al . Standalone AI for breast cancer detection at screening digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Radiology 2023. ; 307 ( 5 ): e222639 . - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lång K , Josefsson V , Larsson A-M , et al . Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study . Lancet Oncol 2023. ; 24 ( 8 ): 936 – 944 . - PubMed
    1. Wing P , Langelier MH . Workforce shortages in breast imaging: impact on mammography utilization . AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009. ; 192 ( 2 ): 370 – 378 . - PubMed
    1. Rodríguez-Ruiz A , Krupinski E , Mordang JJ , et al . Detection of breast cancer with mammography: effect of an artificial intelligence support system . Radiology 2019. ; 290 ( 2 ): 305 – 314 . - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources