ArticleCancer innovation2025
Individualized Analysis of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Modified Radical Mastectomy Using Deep Learning.
Article in Cancer innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and modified radical mastectomy (MRM) on individual survival outcomes and to assess the potential of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) in reducing surgical intervention requirements. Methods: To develop treatment recommendations for breast cancer patients, five machine learning models were trained. To mitigate bias in treatment allocation, advanced statistical methods, including propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW), were applied. Results: NSM demonstrated either superior or noninferior survival outcomes compared with MRM across all breast cancer stages, irrespective of adjustments for IPTW and PSM. Among all models and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, the Balanced Individual and Mixture Effect (BIME) for survival regression model proposed in this study showed the strongest protective effects in treatment recommendations, as evidenced by an IPTW hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% CI: 0.26-0.59), an IPTW risk difference of 19.66% (95% CI: 18.20-21.13), and an IPTW difference in restricted mean survival time of 17.77 months (95% CI: 16.37-19.21). NST independently reduced the probability of surgical intervention by 1.4% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.0%), with the greatest impact observed in patients with locally advanced breast cancer, in whom a 4.5% reduction (95% CI: 3.8%-5.2%) in surgical selection was noted. Conclusions: The BIME model provides superior accuracy in recommending surgical approaches for breast cancer patients, leading to improved survival outcomes. These findings underscore the potential of BIME to enhance clinical decision-making. However, further investigation incorporating comprehensive prognostic evaluation is needed to optimize the surgical selection process and refine its clinical utility.
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.