Dear Women's Imaging Insider,
Welcome to the first Women's Imaging Insider of 2012. It's hard to believe we're already in February!
One modality that seems to consistently pique people's interest is digital breast tomosynthesis. But how well does it stack up against mammography? Italian researchers posed that question in terms of how much can it reduce the recall rate compared with 2D mammography. What do you think? A lot? A little? Find out here.
In another breast tomosynthesis story, U.K. and Swedish researchers compared radiologists with limited experience in reading breast exams with those with more experience using breast tomosynthesis and mammography. They sought to determine whether two-view tomosynthesis makes a difference in detecting lesions when radiologists have varying levels of experience. Read the story here.
Also in our Women's Imaging Digital Community, you'll find a slew of other stories:
U.K. researchers found that elastography improves assessment of breast masses. Find out how exactly by clicking here.
Extra care needs to be taken for pregnant patients, but what does that mean in terms of imaging the fetus? Ultrasound is obviously the first choice, but what about MRI? How does that fit in? A new study by Irish researchers can answer those questions.
Many women across Europe have had an unsettling few weeks since news broke of Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) breast implant recalls. Various countries issued statements about whether a recall was necessary. Now, the former PIP chief executive allegedly responsible for the debacle has been arrested.
The AuntMinnieEurope.com team will be attending ECR from 1 to 5 March. Please keep an eye out for our coverage from the congress. And if there's a study you find to be particularly interesting, please drop me a line.




![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.auntminnieeurope.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=100&q=70&w=100)






![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.auntminnieeurope.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=112&q=70&w=112)







