The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2725
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:15:08.598749Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: health
headline: Frequency and characteristics of errors by artificial intelligence (AI) in reading screening mammography: a systematic review
dek: PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and quantify the types of AI errors to better understand the consequences of implementing this technology. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for external validation studies of the accuracy of AI algorithms in real-world screening mammograms. Descriptive synthesis was performed on error types and frequenc…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In a systematic review of seven studies covering 447,676 screening mammograms, the pooled false positive rate of the Transpara AI tool was 71.83% at threshold 3 and still 10.77% at threshold 9, and raising the threshold pushed missed cancers up to 0.12%.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In a systematic review of seven studies covering 447,676 screening mammograms, the pooled false positive rate of the Transpara AI tool was 71.83% at threshold 3 and still 10.77% at threshold 9, and raising the threshold pushed missed cancers up to 0.12%.
problem_evidence: Pooled FPP decreased incrementally with increasing positivity threshold (71.83% [95% CI 69.67, 73.90] at Transpara 3 to 10.77% [95% CI 8.34, 13.79] at Transpara 9)
quick_read: A systematic review of seven retrospective studies, covering 447,676 screening mammograms published between 2019 and 2022, quantified how often AI makes errors when reading breast screening images in real-world programmes. Across positivity thresholds of the Transpara tool, pooled false positives fell from 71.83% at threshold 3 to 10.77% at threshold 9, while pooled false negatives rose from 0.02% to 0.12%.

The trade-off matters for screening programmes considering AI to replace some human reading. A lower threshold means many women flagged unnecessarily; a higher one means more missed cancers. Results varied within each threshold by algorithm version and by whether studies counted interval cancers, so the figures are not fixed properties of the tool.

Other kinds of error were almost never reported. Only one study addressed technical failures, and it found none; one study examined location errors, where AI marked the wrong place. The authors say this thin reporting limits understanding of how AI would affect screening workflow and outcomes.
limitation: 
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Seven retrospective studies with 447,676 examinations, published 2019 to 2022, met the inclusion criteria after 1,760 unique records were screened. | Pooled false positives were 46.86% at Transpara threshold 5 and 29.86% at threshold 7, the most commonly reported triage thresholds. | Studies counting both screen-detected and interval cancers showed lower false positive and higher false negative proportions than studies counting screen-detected cancers only. | Among cancers the AI missed, 88% to 100% were invasive in two studies and 53% to 100% were interval cancers in two studies. | Median tumour size of missed cancers ranged from 7 to 25 mm, versus 9 to 30 mm for cancers the AI detected in one registry-linked study. | Four of the seven studies had high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one domain. | In the one study of location errors, 8 of 18 wrongly placed AI markings were later confirmed as benign lesions.
rundown: The review followed PRISMA-DTA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. It searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ArXiv for external validation studies in population screening where AI acted as an independent reader, either standalone or as a triage step. Five studies used versions 1.4.0 to 1.7.0 of Transpara, one used an ensemble model and one used a prototype AI-CAD system.

The datasets came from Sweden (two studies), Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain and the United States, with enrolment from 2008 to 2018 and mean ages of 53 to 60. Cancer prevalence was 0.64% to 0.71% in studies with screen-detected cancers only and 0.71% to 1.22% where interval cancers were included.

Later Transpara versions (1.6.0 and 1.7.0) showed lower false negatives than version 1.4.0, but with more false positives, which the authors say could mean more recalls. Single radiologist sensitivity was comparable to Transpara score 7 (0.83 to 0.92) or 9 (0.77 to 0.88).

The authors recommend that future studies include all interval cancers, ideally through registry linkage, and report errors separately for screen-detected and interval cancers.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-024-07353-3 | 2024-06-09
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

6163ae17aaaaf95c02efc7f189d6c2e46fbd95484e13381091ccf6835e454c31

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000