ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Artificial intelligence enhances cancer cell selection for HER2 gene amplification assessment in breast carcinoma.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of HER2 gene amplification is a time-consuming process that requires quantifying a large number of signals in cancer cells to ensure reproducible results, a task that can be assisted by image analysis (IA) tools. This study aimed to develop and validate an artificial intelligence-based cancer cell detection model for detecting breast carcinoma in bright-field in situ hybridization (ISH) whole-slide images, with the goal of improving cancer cell selection prior to the quantification of HER2 and CEP17 gene copies. The difference in IA performance was not statistically significant compared to visual assessment in quantifying the HER2/CEP17 ratio and average HER2 copy numbers per cell. However, IA with the Cancer Cell Detection Module (IA 2.0) quantified consistently higher values than IA without (IA 1.0). Cancer cell detection in IA 1.0 showed 64% sensitivity, 83% specificity, and a positive predictive value (PPV) above 95% for samples with at least 84% cancer cellularity. IA 2.0 improved cancer cell detection sensitivity to 69% and specificity to 93%, achieving a PPV above 95% for samples with at least 66% cancer cellularity. IA 2.0 showed 95% concordance with visual scoring (k = 0.90), with 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Discordant cases required the selection of a second cancer cell-enriched region of interest, shifting classification from HER2-negative to HER2-positive. After correction, IA 2.0 achieved full agreement with visual classification (100%, k = 1.000), underscoring the critical role of the pathologist supervision in this assay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42029714What 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.