ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Deep learning-based assessment of HER2-ultralow expression in breast cancer: a multi-center validation study across primary and metastatic lesions.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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
Accurate assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is foundational for targeted therapy in breast cancer (BC). The recent expansion of treatment eligibility to include HER2-ultralow poses a significant diagnostic challenge due to poor inter-observer reproducibility. We developed and validated a whole-slide image (WSI)-based deep learning (DL) model to standardize the identification and quantification of HER2-ultralow expression. A DL model was developed using a single-center training set. For external validation, an initial pool of 180 cases (originally archived as HER2 IHC 0 or 1+) was screened across 20 medical centers. Following rigorous quality control and expert consensus re-evaluation, a high-quality validation cohort of 89 cases (66 primary, 23 metastatic) was selected. The final consensus labels for this cohort included 65 cases of IHC 0, 19 of IHC 1+, and 5 of IHC 2+ (all ISH-negative). To address inter-pathologist variability, a reference standard was established through consensus review by expert breast pathologists, supplemented by Gaussian kernel density estimation (KDE) for continuous quantification of ultralow signals. Performance was benchmarked against participating pathologists using recall, F1 score, and mean absolute error (MAE). The AI model demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in IHC 0 classification compared to pathologists, with higher overall recall (0.862 vs. 0.828) and F1 score (0.761 vs. 0.755). Critically, the model achieved a 93.8% detection rate for HER2-ultralow cases, higher than the pathologist consensus rate (84.6%). Within the IHC 0 subset (n = 65), the AI model yielded a lower MAE, indicating enhanced quantitative precision. The model maintained high generalizability across primary and metastatic sites while accurately excluding non-neoplastic and non-invasive tissue components. To overcome the subjectivity of HER2-ultralow evaluation, particularly the visual challenge of quantifying faint staining, AI demonstrates reproducibility. By providing a robust and objective reference, this quantitative framework shows strong potential to serve as a clinical auxiliary tool, which may help practicing pathologists match expert-level concordance within this highly challenging diagnostic range. AI-based tools have the potential to augment HER2-ultralow scoring possibly in combination with dedicated pathologist training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42487018What 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.