Dr. Peter B. Dean[email protected]BreastMammography's alleged harms: Separating fact from fictionScreening mammography is a tool that has been proved to reduce breast cancer death rates, but its effectiveness continues to be disputed by researchers, some of whom have resorted to guesswork to buttress their arguments, according to an opinion piece by mammography experts Dr. László Tabár and Dr. Peter B. Dean.December 12, 2012Page 1 of 1Top StoriesAIRadiology dominates thirty years of FDA AI device approvalsThe total annual authorization volume increased from a mean of 1.8 per year between 1995 and 2014 to 264 per year between 2023 and 2025.Radiologic TechnologistPetition seeks to increase number of attempts for taking ARRT examLegislationSocieties applaud introduction of Patients First ActEconomics2027 MPFS proposed rule would lift radiology reimbursementMRIMRI could replace DRE for prostate cancer staging
![A normal mammogram confirmed by three-year radiologic follow-up illustrates reader-marked regions of interest (ROIs) during (A) unaided (round 1) and (B) artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted (round 2) reading. Each colored dot represents an ROI for recall by a human reader. Readers could mark more than one ROI per case, represented by multiple dots of the same color. During AI-assisted reading, the AI system displayed three visible prompts: two with suspicion of malignancy scores of 35% (left mediolateral oblique [L MLO] and craniocaudal [L CC]) and one with a suspicion of malignancy score of 10% (right craniocaudal [R CC]), shown as polygonal overlays. Without AI, six of 10 readers (60%) marked a false-positive ROI. With AI assistance, this fell to two of 10 (20%). R MLO = right mediolateral oblique.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&fit=crop&h=167&q=70&w=250)
