ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Enabling DCIS subtyping: leveraging foundation models for robust grading and molecular biomarker scoring.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 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
36 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) is a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer. Due to a lack of reliable prognostic markers, nearly all women with DCIS undergo intensive treatment-often unnecessarily. The LORD trial addresses this by offering active surveillance to women with screen-detected, ER-positive, HER2-negative, grade 1 or 2 DCIS, aiming to reduce overtreatment. To support this, we developed a deep learning pipeline based on foundation models to predict grade, ER, and HER2 status directly from H&E-stained digitized pathology slides. Models were trained and tested on a Dutch multicenter dataset (n = 887) and externally validated on a UK dataset (n = 259). On the Dutch data, the models achieved mean AUROCs of 0.90 (ER), 0.84 (HER2), and 0.86 (grade); external validation yielded 0.80, 0.74, and 0.75, respectively. Using these outputs, we stratified patients according to active surveillance criteria, reaching balanced accuracies of 0.81 (Dutch) and 0.64 (UK), with corresponding NPVs of 0.86 and 0.76. Our models generalize across cohorts and reliably predict key biomarkers, supporting the identification of DCIS patients eligible for less aggressive management.
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.