ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2026
Deep-learning-based breast cancer stage prediction from H&E-stained whole-slide images in resource-constrained settings.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 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.
- Machine learning in cancer imaging for enhanced precision in diagnosis and therapy.Discover computing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence shows promise for evaluating primary breast cancer, including nodal status and molecular subtype. Here, we present a resource-aware deep learning pipeline that combines a Vision Transformer (ViT) feature extractor with an attention-based multiple instance learning (MIL) aggregator to predict pathological tumor-node-metastasis (pTNM) stage from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole-slide images (WSIs). Motivated by deployment in constrained settings, we operate at 2.5× magnification (≈4.0 μm/pixel), well below the 20-40× typically used in computational pathology. For feature extraction, we evaluated three backbones: (1) the UNI foundation model, (2) UNI fine-tuned on the BReAst Carcinoma Subtyping (BRACS) dataset, and (3) a ResNet-50 fine-tuned on BRACS. The embeddings from the best-performing UNI fine-tuned network were used as input to the MIL model, which was trained and validated on 247 WSIs from 214 patients in the Semmelweis cohort. Performance was assessed on three test sets: an internal hold-out from the Semmelweis cohort (82 WSIs from 72 patients), curated subsets of the Nightingale High-Risk Breast Cancer Prediction (NG) dataset (9489 WSIs from 574 patients), and TCGA-BRCA (731 WSIs from 678 patients), all preprocessed identically at 2.5×. The pipeline achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.663, 0.672, and 0.632 for the internal, NG, and TCGA-BRCA test sets, respectively. Whereas operating at 2.5× may limit access to fine cellular cues, our results indicate that stage-relevant information can still be captured at this resolution. This study provides a transparent, compute-efficient WSI-only baseline for pTNM stage prediction from WSIs, supporting feasibility in resource-constrained environments.
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.