Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41209992›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Evaluation of Gemini 2.0 AI in Classifying Breast Lesion Status From Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Preliminary Study.

Nitin Chetla, Trisha Naidu, Shivam Patel, Andrew Bouras, Harshita Kacham, Vinisha Bonagiri, Nasif Zaman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

7 authors.

Nitin ChetlaMedicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.
Trisha NaiduComputational and Systems Neuroscience, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA.
Shivam PatelData Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.
Andrew BourasOsteopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Clearwater, USA.
Harshita KachamMedicine, Osmania University, Hyderabad, IND.
Vinisha BonagiriMedicine, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, IND.
Nasif ZamanComputer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ai diagnosticsbreast cancerbreast mricontrast-enhanced mrideep learninggemini 2lesion classificationmedical imagingprompt engineeringradiology ai

Identifiers

PMID41209992
PMCPMC12594284

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.