ArticleJAMA network open2019
Assessment of Machine Learning of Breast Pathology Structures for Automated Differentiation of Breast Cancer and High-Risk Proliferative Lesions.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of artificial intelligence-based foundation models and "copilots" in cancer pathology: potential and challenges.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025Review
- Informatics at the Frontier of Cancer Research.Cancer research · 2025Review
- Deep learning predicts the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with triple negative breast cancer.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- A morphometric signature to identify ductal carcinoma in situ with a low risk of progression.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Knowledge-Informed Machine Learning for Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Review.IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2025Article
- Classifying histopathological growth patterns for resected colorectal liver metastasis with a deep learning analysis.BJS open · 2024Article
- Progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer: molecular features and clinical significance.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence-based morphometric signature to identify ductal carcinoma in situ with low risk of progression to invasive breast cancer.Research square · 2023Article
- Advances in the application of computational pathology in diagnosis, immunomicroenvironment recognition, and immunotherapy evaluation of breast cancer: a narrative review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Histologic Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Review
- Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Review
- Validation and real-world clinical application of an artificial intelligence algorithm for breast cancer detection in biopsies.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence for quantifying immune infiltrates interacting with stroma in colorectal cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Improving the Diagnosis of Skin Biopsies Using Tissue Segmentation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- End-to-End diagnosis of breast biopsy images with transformers.Medical image analysis · 2022Article
- Machine Learning Algorithm for Distinguishing Ductal Carcinoma In Situ from Invasive Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Image-matching digital macro-slide-a novel pathological examination method for microvascular invasion detection in hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatology international · 2022Article
- Assessment of deep learning algorithms to predict histopathological diagnosis of breast cancer: first Moroccan prospective study on a private dataset.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- MiNuGAN: Dual Segmentation of Mitoses and Nuclei Using Conditional GANs on Multi-center Breast H&E Images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Improving DCIS diagnosis and predictive outcome by applying artificial intelligence.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Following recent US Food and Drug Administration approval, adoption of whole slide imaging in clinical settings may be imminent, and diagnostic accuracy, particularly among challenging breast biopsy specimens, may benefit from computerized diagnostic support tools. Objective: To develop and evaluate computer vision methods to assist pathologists in diagnosing the full spectrum of breast biopsy samples, from benign to invasive cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study, 240 breast biopsies from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries that varied by breast density, diagnosis, patient age, and biopsy type were selected, reviewed, and categorized by 3 expert pathologists as benign, atypia, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and invasive cancer. The atypia and DCIS cases were oversampled to increase statistical power. High-resolution digital slide images were obtained, and 2 automated image features (tissue distribution feature and structure feature) were developed and evaluated according to the consensus diagnosis of the expert panel. The performance of the automated image analysis methods was compared with independent interpretations from 87 practicing US pathologists. Data analysis was performed between February 2017 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy defined by consensus reference standard of 3 experienced breast pathologists. Results: The accuracy of machine learning tissue distribution features, structure features, and pathologists for classification of invasive cancer vs noninvasive cancer was 0.94, 0.91, and 0.98, respectively; the accuracy of classification of atypia and DCIS vs benign tissue was 0.70, 0.70, and 0.81, respectively; and the accuracy of classification of DCIS vs atypia was 0.83, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively. The sensitivity of both machine learning features was lower than that of the pathologists for the invasive vs noninvasive classification (tissue distribution feature, 0.70; structure feature, 0.49; pathologists, 0.84) but higher for the classification of atypia and DCIS vs benign cases (tissue distribution feature, 0.79; structure feature, 0.85; pathologists, 0.72) and the classification of DCIS vs atypia (tissue distribution feature, 0.88; structure feature, 0.89; pathologists, 0.70). For the DCIS vs atypia classification, the specificity of the machine learning feature classification was similar to that of the pathologists (tissue distribution feature, 0.78; structure feature, 0.80; pathologists, 0.82). Conclusion and Relevance: The computer-based automated approach to interpreting breast pathology showed promise, especially as a diagnostic aid in differentiating DCIS from atypical hyperplasia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.