ArticleInsights into imaging2026
An interpretable ultrasound-based deep learning system for early breast cancer in a Chinese population.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCurrent deep learning models for early breast cancer lack interpretability and multimodal integration, limiting their clinical acceptance. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a deep learning system that automates breast ultrasound evaluation to support early breast cancer detection in clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed BrcaDetect, which integrates ultrasound image-based deep learning predictions, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessments, and demographic factors. A total of 24,762 ultrasound images from 3048 women across five hospitals were retrospectively collected. The model was trained and internally validated using 19,340 images from 2399 patients at three tertiary hospitals between January 2017 and December 2020, and externally validated using 5422 images from 649 women at two additional hospitals between January 2021 and August 2023. All lesions were confirmed by biopsy or 3-year follow-up. Model performance and its impact on the diagnostic accuracy of five radiologists were evaluated.
resultsBrcaDetect outperformed image-based deep learning and demographic model, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.989 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.979-0.999), 0.851 (95% CI: 0.819-0.884), and 0.826 (95% CI: 0.804-0.848), with corresponding sensitivities of 98.8%, 93.0%, and 71.8%. In the reader study, radiologists assisted by BrcaDetect achieved significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than unassisted reading (0.977 [95% CI: 0.967-0.986] vs. 0.919 [95% CI: 0.900-0.935]; p < 0.001).
conclusionsAs an image‑level decision-support model, BrcaDetect was associated with improved radiologists' performance and interpretability under controlled reading conditions, reducing false positives and demonstrating proof-of-concept for decision support in clinical assessment workflows. KEY POINTS: Current deep learning models for early breast cancer lack interpretability and multimodal integration, severely limiting their clinical acceptance in practice. In a retrospective study, BrcaDetect outperformed single‑modality models across three cohorts and provided strong interpretability via Grad‑CAM and Shapley values. This article addresses the lack of interpretability and multimodal integration in deep learning models for early breast cancer, presenting BrcaDetect: explainable predictions via Grad-CAM and Shapley values may reduce diagnostic uncertainty and support clinical workflow integration as a proof-of-concept.
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.