ArticleF1000Research2026
Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) Based Algorithm for Accurate Estrogen Receptor (ER) and Progesterone Receptor (PR) Analysis in Breast Cancer Diagnostics: Potential to be a Crucial Aid in Routine Workflow.
Article in F1000Research, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scoring of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression in breast cancer is critical for identifying patients who would benefit with hormonal therapy. Since manual scoring of immunohistochemistry (IHC) is influenced by pathologist experience, fatigue, inter-observer variability, and subjectivity, artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms, trained on large datasets can aid to improve diagnostic accuracy. Methodology: This study evaluated an AI-based algorithm for ER and PR IHC scoring in 297 ER and 293 PR cases of invasive breast carcinoma and compared the scores with that of pathologists (two senior and two junior) A pre-trained automated algorithm (Mimansa) identified region of interest and provided the scoreswhich was compared with the consensus score of pathologists-ground truth(GT).Concordance was evaluated using Cohen's kappa and F1 score. Results: For ER IHC, GT scores included 169 strong positive, 31 low positive, and 98 negative cases. Agreement with GT was 99% and 98% for senior pathologists, 97% for the AI algorithm, and 95% and 93% for junior pathologists. The algorithm correctly classified all strong positive cases but showed discordance in 16 low-score cases, with four false negatives and ten false positives. Notably, it identified two true positive cases missed by all pathologists.For PR IHC, agreement rates were 98% and 97% for senior pathologists, 92% for the algorithm, and 93% and 91% for junior pathologists. The algorithm achieved perfect accuracy in strong positive cases but produced 16 false negatives and eight false positives among low-score cases. Cohen's kappa values were 0.91 (ER) and 0.84 (PR). Conclusion: The AI algorithm demonstrated high concordance with expert consensus, performing comparably to senior pathologists and outperforming junior pathologists in several metrics. It shows promise as a supportive second-reader tool, particularly in low-positive cases where diagnostic errors may significantly impact patient management.
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.