Back

Artificial Intelligence in Mammography Screening in Norway (AIMS Norway): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Holen, A. S.; Larsen, M.; Hofvind, S.

2026-03-15 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.03.13.26348320 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and ObjectiveIncreasing screening volumes, combined with global shortage of radiologists and a high proportion of normal mammograms, challenge the efficiency and sustainability of breast cancer screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve resource allocation, workflow efficiency and diagnostic performance by supporting and partially replacing radiologists in the interpretation process. This randomized, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded trial evaluates whether an AI-supported reading strategy, involving one or two radiologists depending on AI risk stratification, is non-inferior to standard independent double reading. The primary outcome is the number of screen-detected breast cancer cases in each group. MethodsWomen invited to BreastScreen Norway in the Western, Central, and Northern Norway Regional Health Authorities are eligible for inclusion. Following written informed consent, participants are randomized 1:1 to the control group (standard independent double reading by two radiologists) or the intervention group. In the intervention group, mammograms are analyzed using Transpara. Examinations with AI scores of 1-7 are interpreted by a single radiologist, whereas examinations with scores of 8-10 undergo independent double reading. Radiologists are blinded to AI scores and AI image markings during the initial interpretation; this information is disclosed during consensus meetings. Non-inferiority will be assessed by estimating confidence interval for the difference in screen-detected cancer rates between groups. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the confidence interval does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin. ConclusionsThe trial addresses a critical challenge in breast cancer screening: maintaining diagnostic performance while improving efficiency in the context of workforce constraints and a high prevalence of normal examinations. By evaluating a risk-stratified AI-supported reading strategy within a population-based screening program, the study will provide important evidence on whether AI can be safely integrated to optimize workload distribution while preserving cancer detection rates. Trial registrationThe ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT06032390)

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.2%
2
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.6%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.5%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.4%
6
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
8
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
9
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
10
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
13
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
14
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
16
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
18
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
19
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.3%
23
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
24
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
29
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%