ArticleBMC cancer2025
Prediction of intraductal cancer microinfiltration based on the hierarchical fusion of peri-tumor imaging histology and dual view deep learning.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simultaneous Preoperative Prediction of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer, DCIS Component, and Multifocality Using Structured Mammographic Features and Gradient-Boosting Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a multimodal fusion model for accurate risk prediction and clinical decision support for ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS).
methodBy integrating deep learning (DL), radiomics and clinical features, this study constructed the combined model and validated its performance in a multicenter cohort containing 232 patients (103 in the training set, 43 in the validation set and 86 in the external test set).
resultsUnimodal DL models showed significant overfitting in external tests (e.g., DenseNet201 training set AUC = 0.85 vs. test set 1 AUC = 0.47), whereas the multimodal fusion model achieved optimal predictive performance across cohorts through heterogeneous data synergy (training set AUC = 0.925, test set 2 AUC = 0.801) with the DeLong test confirmed that it significantly outperformed the unimodal model (P < 0.05). Grad-CAM visualization showed that the model focus region was highly consistent with the radiologist annotation (81% overlap, Cohen's κ = 0.68). Calibration curves (Hosmer-Leeshawn test P > 0.05) and decision curve analysis (DCA) validated the model prediction reliability (error < 5%) with a net clinical benefit advantage (net benefit difference of 7% to 28% at thresholds of 5% to 80%).
conclusionThe multimodal fusion strategy could potentially mitigate the limitations of unimodal models, presenting a potential solution with promising high accuracy and interpretability for individualized diagnosis and treatment of DCIS.
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.