Back to the case
SourceThe cases citing it, and what each argues, are listed below.

Nationwide real-world implementation of AI for cancer detection in population-based mammography screening - Nature Medicine

Nature6 Oct 2026
Source type
Academic Paper
Published
6 Oct 2026
Added by
IKECHUKWUKoinovera team
Added
6 Oct 2026

Contributor evidence

What this source establishes

The large German PRAIM implementation found higher cancer detection with AI-supported reading. Provides evidence beyond the Swedish trial.

Limitations

Observational implementation; reader selection and confounding remain possible.

Supporting excerpt

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) in mammography screening has shown promise in retrospective evaluations, but few prospective studies exist. PRAIM is an observational, multicenter, real-world, noninferiority, implementation study comparing the performance of AI-supported double reading to standard double reading (without AI) among women (50–69 years old) undergoing organized mammography screening at 12 sites in Germany. Radiologists in this study voluntarily chose whether to use the AI system. From July 2021 to February 2023, a total of 463,094 women were screened (260,739 with AI support) by 119 radiologists. Radiologists in the AI-supported screening group achieved a breast cancer detection rate of 6.7 per 1,000, which was 17.6% (95% confidence interval: +5.7%, +30.8%) higher than and statistically superior to the rate (5.7 per 1,000) achieved in the control group. The recall rate in the AI group was 37.4 per 1,000, which was lower than and noninferior to that (38.3 per 1,000) in the control group (percentage difference: −2.5% (−6.5%, +1.7%)). The positive predictive value (PPV) of recall was 17.9% in the AI group compared to 14.9% in the control group. The PPV of biopsy was 64.5% in the AI group versus 59.2% in the control group. Compared to standard double reading, AI-supported double reading was associated with a higher breast cancer detection rate without negatively affecting the recall rate, strongly indicating that AI can improve mammography screening metrics.

AI evidence analysis

Koinovera can compare extracted source evidence against this claim. The result is advisory and may be wrong.

Sign in to analyse evidence

How readers rated this source

These rate the source itself, wherever it is cited. The reasoning built on it is rated on each case.

No one has rated this source yet.

Sign in to rate this source
Open source

Share source

Anyone with the link can read this page. They do not need an account.

Cited in

A source does not take a side by itself. These are the cases that use it, and what each argues.

Loading the cases that cite this source…

Review notes

Short, specific corrections about this source itself. They show wherever the source is cited.

Sign in to add note

Loading review notes…

Gathering the latest community-submitted evidence.