ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Specificity of Celbrea, a novel noninvasive thermal screening device, in women with recent negative screening mammograms.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer screening through mammography (MAM) remains the gold standard for early detection. However, MAM implementation faces several challenges, including psychological barriers, resource constraints, and reduced sensitivity in certain populations. Novel screening tools, complementary to mammography, may improve breast cancer detection rates and patient adherence to screening. This study evaluated whether negative results from Celbrea, a novel thermal-based device, were in agreement with negative MAM findings. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at an imaging center in Memphis, Tennessee. Eligible participants were healthy women aged 25-80 years with bra cup size D or smaller, normal breast skin, and no prior breast cancer diagnosis undergoing routine annual screening MAM. Participants were screened with Celbrea, an FDA-cleared thermal device for breast disease detection. MAM results were classified as negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) or positive. Celbrea results were classified as either: non-significant (temperature differential ≤2°F) or significant. We calculated specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) using confusion matrices. Results: Of 77 enrolled women, 68 had conclusive results for Celbrea. After excluding 5 women with BI-RADS 0 MAM, 63 were included in the final diagnostic performance analysis. Among these, 56 had negative results on both tests, 1 had a positive MAM (BI-RADS 3) with a non-significant Celbrea result, and 6 had negative MAM with significant Celbrea findings. Overall specificity was 90.3% (95% CI: 80.1-96.4) and NPV was 98.3% (95% CI: 90.6-100.0). Among women with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular tissue (n=35), specificity was 85.3% (95% CI: 68.9-95.1) and NPV was 96.7% (95% CI: 82.8-99.9). Among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (n=28), specificity was 96.4% (95% CI: 81.7-99.9) and NPV was 100.0% (95% CI: 87.2-100.0). Conclusions: Celbrea showed concordance of negative results with MAM. These findings demonstrate good discriminatory capacity and suggest potential clinical utility as an adjunctive or triage tool.
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.