Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39026540›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Comparison of radiomics-based machine-learning classifiers for the pretreatment prediction of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer.

Xue Li, Chunmei Li, Hong Wang, Lei Jiang, Min Chen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Integrating deep learning and radiomics for precise identification of luminal A/B breast cancer subtypes on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

5 authors.

Xue LiRadiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chunmei LiRadiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hong WangRadiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lei JiangRadiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Min ChenRadiology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Machine learning classifiers are increasingly used to create predictive models for pathological complete response (pCR) in breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Few studies have compared the effectiveness of different ML classifiers. This study evaluated radiomics models based on pre- and post-contrast first-phase T1 weighted images (T1WI) in predicting breast cancer pCR after NAT and compared the performance of ML classifiers. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 281 patients undergoing NAT from the Duke-Breast-Cancer-MRI dataset. Radiomic features were extracted from pre- and post-contrast first-phase T1WI images. The Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was applied, then the dataset was randomly divided into training and validation groups (7:3). The radiomics model was built using selected optimal features. Support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) were classifiers. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess predictive performance. Results: LightGBM performed best in predicting pCR [area under the curve (AUC): 0.823, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.743-0.902], accuracy 74.0%, sensitivity 85.0%, specificity 67.2%]. During subgroup analysis, RF was most effective in pCR prediction in luminal breast cancers (AUC: 0.914, 95% CI [0.847-0.981], accuracy 87.0%, sensitivity 85.2%, specificity 88.1%). In triple-negative breast cancers, LightGBM performed best (AUC: 0.836, 95% CI [0.708-0.965], accuracy 78.6%, sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 90.0%). Conclusion: The LightGBM-based radiomics model performed best in predicting pCR in patients with breast cancer. RF and LightGBM showed promising results for luminal and triple-negative breast cancers, respectively.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPathologic Complete ResponseRadiomicsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSupport Vector MachineTreatment OutcomeBreast cancerMachine learningMRI radiomicsNeoadjuvant therapyPathologic complete response

Identifiers

PMID39026540
PMCPMC11257043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.