ArticleBMC cancer2026
A predictive model for pathological complete response in neoadjuvant-treated breast cancer: integrating pretreatment clinicopathologic and contrast-enhanced ultrasound characteristics via interpretable machine learning.
Article in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ability to predict pathological complete response (pCR) prior to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) would inform and facilitate tailored therapeutic regimens for patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to develop and internally validate an interpretable machine-learning model for pretreatment pCR prediction using routinely available clinicopathologic variables, hematologic indices, and ultrasound (US)/contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) descriptors.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 309 sequential breast cancer cases managed with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical intervention. Patients were randomly divided into training and testing cohorts at a ratio of 8:2 using stratified sampling according to pCR status. Feature selection was performed exclusively in the training cohort using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Five machine-learning classifiers, including CatBoost, LightGBM, XGBoost, SVM, and CART, were developed and evaluated. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, with 95% CI), accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, recall, F1-score, G-mean, Brier score, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration analysis. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) were used for model interpretation.
resultspCR was achieved in 29.8% (92/309) patients. LASSO regression selected eight predictors, including CEA, clinical T stage, ER, PR, HER2, Ki-67 index, Hyperechoic halo on US, and Range expansion on CEUS. In the testing cohort, CatBoost achieved an AUC of 0.8295 (95% CI: 0.7166-0.9231) and showed the highest overall accuracy (0.8065), specificity (0.8182), and precision (0.6364). CatBoost also demonstrated acceptable calibration, with a Brier score of 0.1595, and favorable net benefit across clinically relevant threshold probabilities. SHAP analysis identified HER2 status, CEA, clinical T stage, and hyperechoic halo as the leading contributors to the final model.
conclusionsAn interpretable pretreatment CatBoost model showed good discrimination, acceptable calibration, and favorable clinical net benefit for predicting pCR after NAT in breast cancer. This approach may help support pretreatment risk stratification and inform multidisciplinary discussions.
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.