ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
A machine learning-based predictive model for complication risks in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Study-level factors associated with hematoma after ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast lesion excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis using a T-P-B framework.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Postoperative complications after vacuum-assisted excision of benign breast tumors and their associated risk factors.Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) has become the standard minimally invasive procedure for diagnosing and treating benign breast lesions. Despite its widespread adoption, postoperative complications such as bruising, residual tumors, and skin injury remain significant clinical challenges that can impact patient outcomes and satisfaction. Current risk assessment methods lack precision, highlighting the need for more sophisticated predictive tools. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study analyzing 1,064 VABB procedures performed at three medical centers between 2017 and 2025. Using a comprehensive set of 12 preoperative variables including tumor characteristics and anatomical relationships, we developed and validated six machine learning models. The random forest algorithm demonstrated superior performance in our five-fold cross-validation analysis, with particular strength in predicting postoperative bruising and operative duration. Results: Our predictive model achieved exceptional performance for bruising risk assessment (AUC 0.971, accuracy 96.7%) and moderate surgical duration prediction. SHAP analysis identified three key predictive features: tumor size (mean SHAP value 0.32), blood flow grade (0.28), and distance to pectoralis muscle (0.25). The model maintained strong performance in external validation (AUC 0.945), confirming its generalizability. However, prediction of rare complications like tumor residual showed limited effectiveness (AUC 0.68). Conclusions: This study presents a clinically validated machine learning tool that accurately predicts common VABB complications, particularly postoperative bruising. By incorporating specific anatomical and tumor characteristics into preoperative planning, surgeons can better anticipate and potentially mitigate these adverse outcomes. The model's integration into clinical practice could enhance surgical decision-making and improve patient counseling regarding expected recovery experiences. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html, identifier ChiCTR2500095736.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.