ArticlePrecision clinical medicine2026
Artificial intelligence-based multimodal integration of ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast-level risk classification.
Article in Precision clinical medicine, 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 imaging frequently combines ultrasound (US), digital mammography (DM), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), yet integrating complementary findings remains labor-intensive. Methods: We developed a parallel-branch deep learning framework for breast-level risk classification from paired US, DM, and DBT examinations. The models were trained on 2187 breasts and evaluated in an internal validation cohort of 632 breasts and an independent pathology-confirmed cohort of 500 breasts. Six single- and dual-modality models were compared. Results: In the internal validation cohort, US-DBT achieved the highest observed area under the curve (AUC) of 0.944 (95% CI, 0.926-0.963), exceeding US-DM and DM-DBT but not US; its sensitivity was 0.860 (95% CI, 0.805-0.904) and specificity was 0.904 (95% CI, 0.871-0.930). In the pathology-confirmed cohort, US-DBT achieved an AUC of 0.934 (95% CI, 0.913-0.955), exceeding US and DM-DBT but not US-DM. Its specificity was higher than that of all three models (0.955; 95% CI, 0.927-0.975; all adjusted Conclusions: These findings identify improved specificity as the principal added value of US-DBT and support its potential use as an adjunctive breast-level tool for refining positive imaging findings and prioritizing further diagnostic evaluation. Prospective validation in representative screening populations is required.
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.