Performance of Algorithms Submitted in the 2023 RSNA Screening Mammography Breast Cancer Detection AI Challenge

Background The 2023 RSNA Screening Mammography Breast Cancer Detection AI Challenge invited participants to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of independently interpreting mammograms. Purpose To assess the performance of the submitted algorithms, explore the potential for improving performance by combining the best-performing AI algorithms, and investigate how performance was influenced by the demographic and clinical characteristics of the evaluation cohort. Materials and Methods A total of 1687 AI algorithms were submitted from November 2022 to February 2023. Of these, 1537 algorithms were assessed using an evaluation dataset from two sites-one in the United States and one in Australia. Cancer cases were identified at screening and confirmed with pathologic examination; noncancer cases were followed up for at least 1 year. Results for ensemble models of top algorithms were computed by recalling a case when any of the included algorithms indicated recall. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to investigate differences in AI performance when the dataset was stratified by clinical or demographic characteristics. Results The evaluation dataset consisted of 5415 women (median age, 59 years [IQR, 52-66 years]). Among the 1537 AI algorithms, the median recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were 1.7%, 27.6%, 98.7%, and 36.9%, respectively. For the top-ranked algorithm, the recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 1.5%, 48.6%, 99.5%, and 64.6%, respectively. Ensemble models of the top 3 and top 10 algorithms had a sensitivity of 60.7% and 67.8%, respectively; the corresponding recall rates were 2.4% and 3.5%, and the corresponding specificities were 98.8% and 97.8%. Lower sensitivity was observed for the U.S. dataset than for the Australian dataset (top 3 ensemble model: 52.0% vs 68.1%; OR = 0.51; <i>P</i> = .02), and greater sensitivity was observed for invasive cancers than for noninvasive cancers (top 3 ensemble model: 68.0% vs 43.8%; OR = 2.73; <i>P</i> = .001). Conclusion The different AI algorithms identified different cancers during screening mammography, and ensemble models had increased sensitivity while maintaining low recall rates. © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology
Published
2025-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.241447
Citations
5
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of Algorithms Submitted in the 2023 RSNA Screening Mammography Breast Cancer Detection AI Challenge

Luyan Yao, Tara Retson, Robyn L. Ball, Hari Trivedi et al.
5 citations
Radiology
AI in cancer detection
12.40
article

Performance of Algorithms Submitted in the 2023 RSNA Screening Mammography Breast Cancer Detection AI Challenge

Luyan Yao, Tara Retson, Robyn L. Ball, Hari Trivedi, Iain Darker, John Mongan, Linda Moy, Yan Chen, Ritse M. Mann, Helen Frazer, Tatiana Kelil, Felipe Kitamura, Maryam Vazirabad, George Partridge
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Background The 2023 RSNA Screening Mammography Breast Cancer Detection AI Challenge invited participants to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of independently interpreting mammograms. Purpose To assess the performance of the submitted algorithms, explore the potential for improving performance by combining the best-performing AI algorithms, and investigate how performance was influenced by the demographic and clinical characteristics of the evaluation cohort. Materials and Methods A total of 1687 AI algorithms were submitted from November 2022 to February 2023. Of these, 1537 algorithms were assessed using an evaluation dataset from two sites-one in the United States and one in Australia. Cancer cases were identified at screening and confirmed with pathologic examination; noncancer cases were followed up for at least 1 year. Results for ensemble models of top algorithms were computed by recalling a case when any of the included algorithms indicated recall. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to investigate differences in AI performance when the dataset was stratified by clinical or demographic characteristics. Results The evaluation dataset consisted of 5415 women (median age, 59 years [IQR, 52-66 years]). Among the 1537 AI algorithms, the median recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were 1.7%, 27.6%, 98.7%, and 36.9%, respectively. For the top-ranked algorithm, the recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 1.5%, 48.6%, 99.5%, and 64.6%, respectively. Ensemble models of the top 3 and top 10 algorithms had a sensitivity of 60.7% and 67.8%, respectively; the corresponding recall rates were 2.4% and 3.5%, and the corresponding specificities were 98.8% and 97.8%. Lower sensitivity was observed for the U.S. dataset than for the Australian dataset (top 3 ensemble model: 52.0% vs 68.1%; OR = 0.51; <i>P</i> = .02), and greater sensitivity was observed for invasive cancers than for noninvasive cancers (top 3 ensemble model: 68.0% vs 43.8%; OR = 2.73; <i>P</i> = .001). Conclusion The different AI algorithms identified different cancers during screening mammography, and ensemble models had increased sensitivity while maintaining low recall rates. © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i>

RadiologyVol. 316(2)
Bunker Hill Community College (US), Radiological Society of North America (US), University of Nottingham (GB), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Emory University (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), University of California System (US), University of California San Diego (US), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), Jackson Laboratory (US), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (BR), Breastscreen Victoria (AU), DASA (Brazil), New York University (US), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
AI in cancer detection
12.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.