ArticlePeerJ2024
Comparison of radiomics-based machine-learning classifiers for the pretreatment prediction of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multimodal deep learning for predicting neoadjuvant treatment outcomes in breast cancer: a systematic review.Biology direct · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning model for predicting a high comprehensive complication index following rectal cancer surgery.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Radiomics in Oncology: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Simple and Robust MRI Radiomics Feature for Predicting Pathological Complete Response: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Radiomics-based Machine Learning Models for Classifying Breast Cancer on Dynamic-Contrast Enhanced MRI through Multi-Observer AnalysisCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Construction and verification of a prediction model for sleep disorders in older patients with coronary heart disease based on machine learning algorithms.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Study on multi-modal feature fusion machine learning classification model of Chinese and Western medicine for depressive symptoms in middle-aged and older patients with chronic low back pain.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Enhancing happiness and life satisfaction in university students: analysis with a machine learning approach.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.