ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2026
Imaging-Based Prediction of Key Breast Cancer Biomarkers Using Deep Learning on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2026. 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.
- Breast Cancer Screening: What Are the Areas for Improvement in France?European journal of breast health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of using deep learning models applied to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images for non-invasive prediction of breast cancer biomarkers, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki-67 proliferation index, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with histopathologically-confirmed, invasive breast cancer were included. Furthermore, all included patients had complete, immunohistochemically-assessed biomarker data available. For each case, a representative DBT slice showing the tumor was selected and preprocessed using histogram equalization. Two pretrained convolutional neural networks (VGG19 and ResNet50) were fine-tuned for binary classification of each biomarker. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient. Results: The study sample included 43 anonymized female patients. Deep learning models achieved strong predictive performance for ER (AUC = 0.81) and TNBC (AUC = 0.93). HER2 (AUC = 0.74) and Ki-67 index (AUC = 0.70) were predicted with moderate accuracy. PR results varied, with VGG19 reaching AUC = 0.76 while ResNet50 performed poorly (AUC = 0.24). Conclusion: Deep learning models applied to DBT images enabled non-invasive prediction of some key breast cancer biomarkers, especially ER status and TNBC type. This approach may function as a virtual biopsy to complement histopathology, guide biopsy targeting, and support treatment planning. Although preliminary, the findings highlight the potential of artificial intelligence-enhanced DBT assessment and warrant validation in larger, multi-center prospective studies.
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.