ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025
Machine learning-based prediction of luminal breast cancer subtypes using polarised light microscopy.
Article in British journal of cancer, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoutine histopathology cannot distinguish between clinically diverse luminal A and B breast cancer subtypes (LBCS), often requiring ancillary testing. Mueller matrix polarimetry (MMP) offers a promising approach by analysing polarised light interactions with complex breast tissues. This study explores the efficacy of using MMP for luminal subtype differentiation.
methodsWe analysed 30 polarimetric and 7 clinical parameters from 116 unstained breast core biopsies, LBCS classified using the BluePrint® molecular assay. These features were used to train various machine learning models: logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, random forest, and XGBoost to distinguish luminal subtypes. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to each to assess diagnostic performance using area under the curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsUsing the top six most prognostic polarimetric (three) and clinical (three) biomarkers ranked by feature importance, the best-performing random forest model achieved an accuracy of 81% (area under ROC = 86%), with both sensitivity and specificity at 75% on an unseen test set, indicating moderately promising, clinically informative performance.
conclusionsMMP, particularly its selected Mueller matrix elements, combined with clinical biomarkers show promise in distinguishing LBCS as validated against BluePrint®. By detecting subtle differences in tissue morphology, this approach may enhance breast cancer prognosis and help guide treatment decisions.
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.