Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34647174›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2022

Predicting the molecular subtype of breast cancer and identifying interpretable imaging features using machine learning algorithms.

Mengwei Ma, Renyi Liu, Chanjuan Wen, Weimin Xu, Zeyuan Xu, Sina Wang, Jiefang Wu, Derun Pan, Bowen Zheng, Genggeng Qin and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mengwei Ma *Department of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Renyi Liu *Department of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Chanjuan WenDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Weimin XuDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Zeyuan XuDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Sina WangDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Jiefang WuDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Derun PanDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Bowen ZhengDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Genggeng QinDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China. zealotq@smu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7563-3924
Weiguo ChenDepartment of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China. chen1999@smu.edu.cn.
Nanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the performance of interpretable machine learning models in predicting breast cancer molecular subtypes.

methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 600 patients with invasive breast carcinoma between 2012 and 2019. The patients were randomly divided into a training (n = 450) and a testing (n = 150) set. The five constructed models were trained based on clinical characteristics and imaging features (mammography and ultrasonography). The model classification performances were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) technique was used to interpret the optimal model output. Then we choose the optimal model as the assisted model to evaluate the performance of another four radiologists in predicting the molecular subtype of breast cancer with or without model assistance, according to mammography and ultrasound images.

resultsThe decision tree (DT) model performed the best in distinguishing triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from other breast cancer subtypes, yielding an AUC of 0.971; accuracy, 0.947; sensitivity, 0.905; and specificity, 0.941. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of all radiologists in distinguishing TNBC from other molecular subtypes and Luminal breast cancer from other molecular subtypes have significantly improved with the assistance of DT model. In the diagnosis of TNBC versus other subtypes, the average sensitivity, average specificity, and average accuracy of less experienced and more experienced radiologists increased by 0.090, 0.125, 0.114, and 0.060, 0.090, 0.083, respectively. In the diagnosis of Luminal versus other subtypes, the average sensitivity, average specificity, and average accuracy of less experienced and more experienced radiologists increased by 0.084, 0.152, 0.159, and 0.020, 0.100, 0.048.

conclusionsThis study established an interpretable machine learning model to differentiate between breast cancer molecular subtypes, providing additional values for radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Interpretable machine learning model (MLM) could help clinicians and radiologists differentiate between breast cancer molecular subtypes. • The Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) technique can select important features for predicting the molecular subtypes of breast cancer from a large number of imaging signs. • Machine learning model can assist radiologists to evaluate the molecular subtype of breast cancer to some extent.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMammographyRetrospective StudiesBI-RADSComputer-aided diagnosisInterpretable machine learningMammography and ultrasonographyMolecular subtype breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID34647174
OpenAlexW3206396104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.