Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989491›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025

A machine learning-based predictive model for complication risks in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

Sun Pingdong, Shao Xinran, Shen Yunzhi, Sun Yihan, Zheng Shipeng, Li Yan, Li Qiushi, Zheng Jipeng, Ruan Ting, Wu Wenjun and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

16 authors.

Sun Pingdong *Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Shao Xinran *Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Shen Yunzhi *Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Sun Yihan *Department of Cardiology, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Zheng Shipeng *Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Li Yan *Department of Breast Surgery, The Second People's Hospital of Hami, Hami, China.
Li QiushiDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Zheng JipengDepartment of General Medicine, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Ruan TingThe Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenyang, China.
Wu WenjunChangchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China.
Yao ShengshengDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Li GangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Liu JinruiDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Ju XingaiDepartment of General Medicine, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Fei XiangDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Cui JianchunDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, People's Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

breast tumormachine learningpostoperative complicationsprediction modelvacuum-assisted breast biopsy

Identifiers

PMID40989491
PMCPMC12450878

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.