ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Deep learning-based risk stratification of ductal carcinoma
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Current management of ductal carcinoma in situ lacks robust risk stratification tools, leading to universal surgical and radiotherapy interventions despite heterogeneous progression risks. Optimizing therapeutic balance remains a critical unmet clinical need. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed two patient cohorts. The first included 173 cases with BI-RADS category 3 or higher findings, used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of four abbreviated MRI protocols against the full diagnostic MRI. The second cohort involved 210 patients who had both mammography and abbreviated MRI. We developed two separate predictive models-one for pure ductal carcinoma in situ and another for invasive ductal carcinoma with associated ductal carcinoma in situ-by integrating clinical, imaging, and pathological features. Deep learning and natural language processing techniques were used to extract relevant features, and model performance was assessed using bootstrap validation. Results: Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging protocols demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to the full protocol (P > 0.05), offering a faster yet effective imaging option. The pure group incorporated features like nuclear grade, calcification morphology, and lesion size, achieving an Area Under the Curve of 0.905, with 86.8% accuracy and an F1 score of 0.853. The model for invasive cases incorporated features Ki-67 status, lymph vascular invasion, and enhancement patterns, achieved an Area Under the Curve of 0.880, with 86.2% accuracy and an F1 score of 0.834. Both models showed good calibration and clinical utility, as confirmed by bootstrap resampling and decision curve analysis. Conclusion: Deep Learning-driven multimodal models enable precise ductal carcinoma
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.