ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Gemini 2.0 AI in Classifying Breast Lesion Status From Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreast MRI, particularly dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, offers high sensitivity in detecting breast lesions but suffers from variability in interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools like Gemini 2.0 (Google AI, Mountain View, CA) may help streamline and improve diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluates Gemini 2.0's performance in classifying breast lesion status using application programming interface (API)-based image analysis.
methodsMRI images were sourced from the publicly available fastMRI Breast dataset, which includes axial DCE-MRI sequences acquired using a 3D Golden-angle Radial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) protocol. Images were converted from DICOM to PNG for compatibility with Gemini 2.0's API. Two binary classification prompts were tested. Prompt 1 distinguished between (A) benign or malignant lesion and (B) negative lesion status using 100 patient scans. Prompt 2 classified (A) benign vs. (B) malignant lesions in a separate set of 180 patient scans. Responses from the Gemini 2.0 API were recorded, and performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.
resultsFor prompt 1, Gemini 2.0 achieved 50% accuracy. It identified all benign or malignant lesions (100% recall) but misclassified all negative cases, yielding 0% recall for negative lesion status. The F1-score was 0.67 for benign/malignant lesions and 0 for negative lesions. For prompt 2, the model achieved 52% accuracy. It exhibited 97% recall for malignant lesions but only 7% for benign lesions, reflecting a strong bias toward malignancy. The weighted average F1-score was 0.39. DISCUSSION: Gemini 2.0 shows promise in flagging lesion presence but lacks the discriminatory power needed to distinguish benign from malignant or negative cases reliably. The high false-positive rate and class imbalance indicate a need for algorithmic refinement and further validation. Larger and more diverse training datasets are necessary to improve performance and reduce bias. Future research should compare AI classifications to radiologist interpretations in a prospective setting to assess clinical utility.
conclusionGemini 2.0 offers preliminary utility in breast lesion detection on DCE-MRI, particularly in identifying malignancy. However, its limited specificity and poor differentiation between lesion types underscore the need for continued development before clinical deployment.
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.