Of the screen-detected cancers, 12.9% (745/5786) had an interpretation score of 1 by one of the radiologists and 2 by the other (1+2), 12.1% (701/5786) had a score of 1+3/4/5, 12.4% (716/5786) 2+2, 17.3% (1001/5786) 2+3/4/5, and 45.3% (2623/5786) had a score of 3/4/5+3/4/5 (Table 1). For interval cancers, the percentages were 79.7 (1421/1783) for interpretation score 1+1, 13.8% (246/1783) for score 1+2, 1.5% (27/1783) for 1+3/4/5, 3.7% (66/1783) for 2+2, and 0.8% (14/1783) for 2+3/4/5.

When defining 10% of the examinations with the highest AI scores as positive, 74.9% (558/745) of the screen-detected cancers with interpretation score 1+2 and 88.7% (622/701) with interpretation score 1+3/4/5 were identified by AI. The percentages were 81.1% (581/716) for score 2+2, 92.1% (922/1001) for 2+3/4/5, and 97.9% (2567/2623) for 3/4/5+3/4/5 (Table 2). At a 5% AI threshold, 63.2% (471/745) of the screen-detected cancers with interpretation score 1+2 and 96.1% (2522/2623) with interpretation score 3/4/5+3/4/5 were identified by AI. The percentages were 54.0% (402/745) and 93.9% (2464/2623), respectively, when defining the top 3% highest AI scores as positive.

When defining 10% of the examinations with the highest AI scores as positive 34.8% (495 /1421) of the interval cancers with interpretation score 1+1, and 55.3% (136 /246) of those with score 1+2, 74.1% (20/27) with 1+3/4/5, 62.1% (41/66) with 2+2, 71.4% (10/14) with 2+3/4/5, and 100.0% (9/9) with 3/4/5+3/4/5 were identified by AI (Table 3). At a 5% threshold, AI identified 23.9% (339/1421) of the interval cancers with an interpretation score of 1+1 and 88.9% (8/9) of those with interpretation score 3/4/5+3/4/5. The percentages were 16.5% (234/1421) and 77.8% (7/9), respectively, at an AI threshold of 3%.