ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
AI calls the bluff: differentiating benign lesions from triple-negative breast cancer cases.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most aggressive molecular subtype of breast cancer (BC). TNBC lacks targeted treatment options, which results in poor clinical outcomes. TNBC lesions usually present benign characteristics on mammograms, complicating their early diagnosis. This retrospective multicenter study presents a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to distinguish TNBC from benign lesions on 566 mammograms (277 benign/289 TNBC), acquired at three different institutions across the UK. Each mammogram had its quality enhanced using a combination of total variation minimization filtering and contrast local adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE). The proposed model achieved a test set AUC of 0.984, with a sensitivity and specificity of 94.2% and 91.9%, respectively. Explainability with GRAD-CAM was applied to the test set, revealing that the model was using not only lesion characteristics but also tumor microenvironment regions to make predictions. The same test set was analyzed by an expert radiologist who achieved a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 60%. The comparison of results between the developed model and the expert radiologist highlights the model's performance and underscores its potential as a complementary diagnostic tool. This model might help in the task of TNBC early diagnosis, potentially diminishing the number of false negatives.
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.