Evidence Hub

Artificial intelligence for breast cancer screening in mammography (AI-STREAM): preliminary analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study

Yun-Woo Chang, Jung Kyu Ryu, Jin Kyung An, Na-Mi Choi, Young Mi Park, Kyung Hee Ko, K. Han

Nature Communications, 2025

24,543 participants · 90 citations

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) improves the accuracy of mammography screening, but prospective evidence, particularly in a single-read setting, remains limited. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of breast radiologists with and without AI-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) for screening mammograms in a real-world, single-read setting. A prospective multicenter cohort study is conducted within South Korea’s national breast cancer screening program for women. The primary outcomes are screen-detected breast cancer within one year, with a focus on cancer detection rates (CDRs) and recall rates (RRs) of radiologists. A total of 24,543 women are included in the final cohort, with 140 (0.57%) screen-detected breast cancers. The CDR is significantly higher by 13.8% for breast radiologists using AI-CAD (n = 140 [5.70‰]) compared to those without AI (n = 123 [5.01‰]; p < 0.001), with no significant difference in RRs (p = 0.564). These preliminary results show a significant improvement in CDRs without affecting RRs in a radiologist’s standard single-reading setting (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05024591). Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve mammography screening accuracy, but prospective evidence is still lacking. Here, the authors show in a prospective multicentre cohort study under single-read settings that the diagnostic accuracy of breast radiologists can significantly improve with AI-based computer-aided detection.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 24,543 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free