ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Prediction of OncotypeDX recurrence score using hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The OncotypeDX 21-gene assay guides adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, but cost and turnaround time limit access. This study presents a deep learning-based approach for predicting OncotypeDX recurrence scores directly from hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images. Our approach leverages a deep learning foundation model pre-trained on 171,189 slides via self-supervised learning, which is fine-tuned for our task. The model was developed and validated using five independent cohorts, out of which three are external. On the two external cohorts that include OncotypeDX scores, the model achieved an AUC of 0.836 and 0.817, and identified 22% and 16.3% of the patients as low-risk with sensitivity of 0.97 and 0.97 and negative predictive value of 0.97 and 0.96, showing strong generalizability despite variations in staining protocols and imaging devices. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patients classified as low-risk by the model had a significantly better prognosis than those classified as high-risk, with a hazard ratio of 4.1 (P < 0.001) and 2.0 (P < 0.01) on the two external cohorts that include patient outcomes. This artificial intelligence-driven solution offers a rapid, cost-effective, and scalable alternative to genomic testing, with the potential to enhance personalized treatment planning, especially in resource-constrained settings.
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.