ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Performance of MRI-based deep learning models in differentiation of triple negative breast cancer from other breast cancer subtypes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with limited targeted therapies. Deep learning (DL) applied to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a promising noninvasive alternative to biopsy. This systematic review and meta‑analysis aimed to synthesize current evidence on the diagnostic performance of MRI‑based DL models for identifying TNBC. Material and methods: Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were conducted up to December 5, 2025. Eligible studies evaluated histologically confirmed breast cancer using MRI and DL‑based models for distinguishing TNBC from non‑TNBC. Study quality was assessed using the METRICS. Pooled diagnostic estimates were computed using a bivariate random-effects model in Stata version 18. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias tests were performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by GRADE. Results: Nine studies comprising 2985 patients met inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates in the validation cohorts demonstrated an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88), sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76-0.89), specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), positive likelihood ratio of 6.47 (95% CI: 3.98-10.54), negative likelihood ratio of 0.24 (95% CI: 0.18-0.33), and diagnostic odds ratio of 26.53 (95% CI: 13.86-50.81). Heterogeneity was moderate (I²=30.2%), and no publication bias was detected. Sensitivity analysis revealed no influential individual study. Evidence certainty was rated as low. Conclusion: DL models applied to breast MRI showed potential for noninvasive TNBC identification with high diagnostic accuracy. However, limited external validation and variability in methodological quality highlight the need for standardized, multicenter studies before clinical implementation can be considered.
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.