ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Multimodal feature fusion model for breast mass malignant risk stratification.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to develop and validate machine learning models that integrate multimodal features (BI-RADS terminology, ultrasound imaging, and radiomics) to improve breast mass malignancy risk stratification and compare their diagnostic performance across different BI-RADS categories. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2, 685 patients with 3, 703 ultrasound images collected from July 2019 to March 2024 at a single medical center. Patients included women with complete ultrasound images and clear pathological diagnoses. The dataset comprised 2, 069 benign cases (2, 762 images) and 616 malignant cases (941 images), randomly divided into training (n=2, 979 images) and validation (n=724 images) sets. Primary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for distinguishing malignant from benign breast masses. Three machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest) were trained using BI-RADS terminology features, ultrasound quantitative features, radiomics features, and combined multimodal features. Performance was evaluated both overall and within specific BI-RADS subcategories (2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5). Results: Among 2, 685 patients, the Random Forest model using combined multimodal features achieved the highest overall performance with an AUC of 0.850 (95% CI 0.810- 0.875). For single-modality approaches, Logistic Regression performed best with BI-RADS terminology features, with an AUC of 0.820 (95% CI, 0.775-0.856), and radiomics features, with an AUC of 0.740 (95% CI, 0.706-0.780); while Random Forest was optimal for ultrasound imaging features, with an AUC of 0.800 (95% CI, 0.768-0.839). Subgroup analysis revealed excellent performance for BI-RADS categories 2 (AUC, 1.000-1.000) and 3 (AUC, 0.947-0.957), acceptable performance for 5 (AUC, 0.813-0.870) and 4a (AUC, 0.800-0.867), but poor performance for categories 4b (AUC, 0.649-0.709), 4c (AUC, 0.551-0.623). Discussion: This study demonstrates that machine learning models integrating multimodal ultrasound features can effectively stratify breast mass malignancy risk, with the Random Forest model using combined features showing superior performance. The approach shows particular strength in BI-RADS categories 2, 3, 5 and 4a, suggesting potential clinical utility for reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving diagnostic confidence. However, performance limitations in higher-risk categories (4b, 4c) indicate need for further model refinement and multicenter validation before clinical implementation.
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.