Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40600038›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Comparative analysis of convolutional neural networks and transformer architectures for breast cancer histopathological image classification.

Bo Yuan, Yudie Hu, Yan Liang, Yutong Zhu, Lingyu Zhang, Shimin Cai, Rui Peng, Xianbin Wang, Zheng Yang, Jinhui Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Bo Yuan *The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Yudie Hu *The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Yan Liang *The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Yutong ZhuThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Lingyu ZhangThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Shimin CaiThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Rui PengThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Xianbin WangThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Zheng YangThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Jinhui HuThe First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer remains the most prevalent malignancy in women globally, representing 11.7% of all new cancer cases (2.3 million annually) and causing approximately 685,000 deaths in 2020 (GLOBOCAN 2020). This multifactorial disease, influenced by genetic, hormonal and lifestyle factors, often presents with nonspecific early symptoms that delay detection. While mammography, ultrasound and MRI serve as primary screening modalities, histopathological examination remains the diagnostic gold standard-though subject to interpretation variability. Recent advances in deep learning demonstrate promising potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce false positives/negatives, and alleviate radiologists' workload, thereby enhancing clinical decision-making in breast cancer management. Methods: This study trains and evaluates 14 deep learning models, including AlexNet, VGG16, InceptionV3, ResNet50, Densenet121, MobileNetV2, ResNeXt, RegNet, EfficientNet_B0, ConvNeXT, ViT, DINOV2, UNI, and GigaPath on the BreakHis v1 dataset. These models encompass both CNN-based and Transformer-based architectures. The study focuses on assessing their performance in breast cancer diagnosis using key evaluation metrics, including accuracy, specificity, recall (sensitivity), F1-score, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: In the binary classification task, due to its relatively low complexity, most models achieved excellent performance. Among them, CNN-based models such as ResNet50, RegNet, and ConvNeXT, as well as the Transformer-based foundation model UNI, all reached an AUC of 0.999. The best overall performance was achieved by ConvNeXT, which attained an accuracy of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.3%-1), a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 99.1%-1), an F1-score of 99.1% (95% CI: 98.0-1%), a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI: 0.960-1), and an AUC of 0.999 (95% CI: 0.999-1). In the eight-class classification task, the increased complexity led to more pronounced performance differences among models, with CNN- and Transformer-based architectures performing comparably overall. The best-performing model was the fine-tuned foundation model UNI, which attained an accuracy of 95.5% (95% CI: 94.4-96.6%), a specificity of 95.6% (95% CI: 94.2-96.9%), an F1-score of 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-96.1%), a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.939 (95% CI: 0.926-0.952), and an AUC of 0.998 (95% CI: 0.997-0.999). Additionally, using foundation model encoders directly without fine-tuning resulted in generally poor performance on the classification task. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that deep learning models are highly effective in classifying breast cancer pathology images, particularly in binary tasks where multiple models reach near-perfect performance. Although recent Transformer-based foundation models such as UNI possess strong feature extraction capabilities, their zero-shot performance on this specific task was limited. However, with simple fine-tuning, they quickly achieved excellent results. This indicates that with minimal adaptation, foundation models can be valuable tools in digital pathology, especially in complex multi-class scenarios.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebreast cancerdeep learningfoundation modelpathological tissue section

Identifiers

PMID40600038
PMCPMC12209302

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.