Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40630196›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Deep learning-based risk stratification of ductal carcinoma

Tingfeng Zhang, Tingting Cui, Zhenjie Cao, Jintao Hu, Jie Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Tingfeng ZhangDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Tingting CuiKey Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Guangdong Province, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Zhenjie CaoShenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Jintao HuDepartment of Pathology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jie MaDepartment of Radiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

abbreviated magnetic resonance imagingdeep learningductal carcinoma in situmammographyprognosis

Identifiers

PMID40630196
PMCPMC12234545

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.