ArticlePeerJ2024
An interpretable deep learning model for detecting
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How artificial intelligence applied to digital pathology could guide treatment personalization in breast cancer.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Computational pathology in breast cancer: optimizing molecular prediction through task-oriented AI models.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing breast cancer screening and diagnosis: A review of current advances.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Determining the status of breast cancer susceptibility genes ( Methods: A total of 319 histopathological slides from 254 breast cancer patients were included, comprising two dependent cohorts. Following image pre-processing, 633,484 tumor tiles from the training dataset were employed to train the self-developed deep-learning model. The performance of the network was evaluated in the internal and external test sets. Results: BiAMIL achieved AUC values of 0.819 (95% CI [0.673-0.965]) in the internal test set, and 0.817 (95% CI [0.712-0.923]) in the external test set. To explore the relationship between Conclusions: An interpretable deep neural network model based on the attention mechanism was developed to predict the
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.