Dr. László Tabár and Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen, DDS, PhD[email protected]BreastWe do not want to go back to the Dark Ages of breast screeningThe publication of long-term follow-up results in BMJ from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study has revived an ongoing debate over the methods used in the trial. In this Second Opinion article, Dr. László Tabár of the University of Uppsala presents his view of the study.February 11, 2014Page 1 of 1Top StoriesCTCT reveals severe craniofacial, ocular trauma from pager blastsHead injuries were nearly universal, affecting 93.2% of patients.Molecular ImagingTau PET tracer flags early Alzheimer risk in healthy older adultsAIRadiologists can identify three out of four AI-generated imagesWomens ImagingWomen's Imaging MinnieCast, Episode 13: Partial breast irradiation in the spotlightAIRadiology dominates thirty years of FDA AI device approvals
![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)
