ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Multimodal deep learning model for multiclass classification of renal tumors.
Article in NPJ digital 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate classification of renal masses before treatment is crucial for therapeutic decision-making and patient outcome. This study developed and validated Multi-Phase Attention Network (MPANet), a multimodal deep learning model integrating multiphase contrast-enhanced CT and clinical information, which can utilize both complete-phase and missing-phase CT data for multiclass classification of four common and easily confusable renal tumors-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC), oncocytic neoplasms (including chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO)), and fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fpAML). A total of 1688 multi-center cases were enrolled. Across all test sets, MPANet consistently outperformed single-phase models. In the internal test set, MPANet achieved a macro-average AUC of 0.850, a micro-average AUC of 0.865, and an accuracy of 73.3%. These results compared favorably to assessments by four radiologists based on CT (accuracies 43.6-62.4%) and two radiologists using MRI with clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) system (accuracies 52.5% and 49.5%). The net improvement rate of MPANet over radiologist assessment ranged from 10.9% to 29.7%. In the two external test sets, macro-average AUCs were 0.811 and 0.813, and micro-average AUCs were 0.867 and 0.909, respectively. MPANet shows potential as a clinical decision-support tool for personalized renal tumor diagnosis.
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.