Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38046928›Full record

ArticleJournal of breast imaging

Prediction of Surgical Upstaging Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Machine Learning Models.

Kimberlee A Hashiba, Sarah Mercaldo, Sheila L Venkatesh, Manisha Bahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breast imaging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
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

4 authors.

Kimberlee A HashibaMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarah MercaldoMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, MA, USA.
Sheila L VenkateshMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, MA, USA.
Manisha BahlMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Development and Clinical Implementation of an Artificial Intelligence Tool to Predict Risk of Upgrade of Ductal Carcinoma In SituK08CA241365 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BAHL, MANISHA · 2019 to 2023
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA241365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to build machine learning models to predict surgical upstaging risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive cancer and to compare model performance to eligibility criteria used by the Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy (COMET) active surveillance trial. Methods: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed of all women with DCIS at core-needle biopsy who underwent surgery from 2007 to 2016 at an academic medical center. Multivariable regression and machine learning models were developed to evaluate upstaging-related features and their performance was compared with that achieved using the COMET trial eligibility criteria. Results: Of 1387 women (mean age, 57 years; range, 27-89 years), the upstaging rate of DCIS was 17% (235/1387). On multivariable analysis, upstaging-associated features were presentation of DCIS as a palpable area of concern, imaging finding of a mass, and nuclear grades 2 or 3 at biopsy ( Conclusion: Use of machine learning models to determine eligibility for the COMET trial identified a larger proportion of women eligible for surveillance compared with current eligibility criteria while maintaining similar upstaging rates.

Indexed as

active surveillancebreast cancerductal carcinoma in situmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38046928
PMCPMC10689255

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.