ArticleBMC cancer2025
Clinical prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer: a machine learning study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remnant cholesterol inflammatory index for predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: A multicenter external validation study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Beyond pCR Prediction: Subtype-Specific Artificial Intelligence for Treatment Tailoring in Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Therapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Correlation Study Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response and Long-Term Prognosis in Breast Cancer Based on Deep Learning Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop and validate machine learning models to predict pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer patients.
methodsClinical and pathological data from 1143 patients were analyzed, encompassing variables such as age, gender, marital status, histologic grade, T stage, N stage, months from diagnosis to treatment, molecular subtype, and response to neoadjuvant therapy. Seven machine learning models were trained and validated using both internal and external datasets. Model performance was evaluated using multiple metrics, and interpretability analysis was conducted to assess feature importance.
resultsKey variables influencing pCR included grade, N stage, months from diagnosis to treatment, and molecular subtype. The Naive Bayes model emerged as the most effective, with accuracy (0.746), sensitivity (0.699), specificity (0.808), and F1 score (0.759) surpassing other models. Both internal and external validation confirmed the model's robust predictive power. A web tool was developed for clinical use, aiding in personalized treatment planning. Interpretability analysis further elucidated the contribution of features to pCR prediction, enhancing clinical applicability.
conclusionThe Naive Bayes model provides a robust tool for personalized treatment decisions in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. By accurately predicting pCR rates, it enables clinicians to tailor treatment strategies, potentially improving outcomes.
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.