Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42732219›Full record

ArticlePrecision clinical medicine2026

Artificial intelligence-based multimodal integration of ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis for breast-level risk classification.

Yujie Tan, Zhenjun Huang, Junwei Li, Ying Zhong, Qinyue Yao, Rui Chen, Yunfang Yu, Yaping Yang, Herui Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yujie TanGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Zhenjun HuangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Junwei LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Liuzhou People's Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou 545006, China.
Ying ZhongHui Ya Hospital of the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Huizhou 516081, China.
Qinyue YaoCellsvision (Guangzhou) Medical Technology Inc., Guangzhou 510000, China.
Rui ChenCellsvision (Guangzhou) Medical Technology Inc., Guangzhou 510000, China.
Yunfang YuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Yaping YangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Herui YaoGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencebreast cancer diagnosisdigital breast tomosynthesismultimodal learningultrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID42732219
PMCPMC13570246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.