ArticleBMC medicine2026
Multiparameter concept-based interpretable model for early breast cancer diagnosis and structured reporting: a multi-center, multi-reader, radiologist-in-the-loop study.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurately differentiating early-stage breast cancer from benign lesions on MRI is essential to reduce unnecessary biopsies. However, the limited interpretability of current deep learning models hinders their clinical trustworthiness and adoption. This study aimed to develop a clinically interpretable concept bottleneck model (CBM) that integrates radiologist-specific knowledge and automatically generates structured reports, thereby improving diagnostic accuracy and consistency in breast MRI interpretation.
methodsPreoperative breast MR images and radiological reports were retrospectively collected from five institutions (January 2016–July 2025) and allocated to internal, external and multi-reader cohorts. Lesion-related descriptors from free-text MRI reports were standardized into BI-RADS-compliant concepts. These concepts, alongside multiparametric MR sequences, were input into the CBM for classification and structured reporting of the lesions annotated by radiologists using bounding boxes. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared against a black-box deep learning model. The accuracy of CBM-generated concepts was evaluated. A two-phase multi-reader study was further conducted to assess clinical utility.
resultsA total of 1,695 pathology-confirmed breast lesions (857 malignant and 838 benign) from 1,634 patients (median age 46 years, IQR 39–53) were included. The CBM achieved an AUC of 0.92 (95%CI 0.90–0.93) on the test set, comparable to the black-box model (AUC: 0.93, 95%CI 0.92–0.94). Concept accuracy ranged from 0.64 to 1.00. In the multi-reader study, the CBM matched the diagnostic accuracy of one radiologist and exceeded that of seven others (all P < 0.05). With CBM assistance, radiologists correctly downgraded 22.1% of lesions to benign. Diagnostic accuracy improved for three radiologists (from 0.71 to 0.72 to 0.82–0.91, all P < 0.05), and inter-reader agreement increased for both concept recognition and BI‑RADS category (Gwet’s AC1: 0.27-1.00 to 0.46-1.00).
conclusionsThe CBM provides a versatile framework for classifying early breast cancer and benign lesions. By employing an image-concept alignment strategy, it enhances intrinsic interpretability and offers radiologists clinically relevant, intelligible decision support that serves both diagnostic and educational needs. Moreover, this retrospective study demonstrates its potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies for benign breast lesions and to improve reporting consistency in breast MRI.
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.