Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40990507›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026

Prediction of neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer based on interpretable artificial intelligence.

Yao Zhou, Xin Shu, Fan Wang, Hui Xu, Hong-Qun Tang, Hao Fang, Jing Huang, Yi-Wei Wang, Hong-Liang Ji, Shi-Wei Zhang and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Yao ZhouData Governance Center, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Xin ShuSchool of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Fan WangData Governance Center, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Hui XuSchool of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Hong-Qun TangYizhichu Medical Pathology Diagnosis Management Co., Ltd, Nanchang, China.
Hao FangSchool of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Jing HuangSchool of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yi-Wei WangAffiliated Rehabilitation Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Hong-Liang JiDepartment of Pathology, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Shi-Wei ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Wei QuPathology Department, The Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Jian-Hong TuPathology Department, The Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Fan NiuData Governance Center, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Li-Bin DengData Governance Center, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo develop an AI-based predictive model for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) efficacy in breast cancer, we integrated multimodal data and analyzed tumor microenvironment (TME) features to provide interpretability.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed H&E-stained whole-slide images (WSIs) from a multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients receiving NAT to develop an AI predictive model. The cohort was stratified into training, test, internal validation, and external validation sets. Feature extraction used UNI and classification employed a multiple instance learning (MIL) framework. Model performance was evaluated via ROC curve analysis (AUC, precision, specificity, recall). Molecular mechanisms underlying model predictions were explored using TCGA multimodal data, integrating differential gene expression profiling with pathway enrichment analysis (GO, KEGG). TME component correlations with model scores were also investigated.

resultsThe AI model demonstrated robust discriminative capacity across three residual cancer burden (RCB)-based classification tasks in 826 patients from two centers, achieving peak performance in subtask 2 (NAT-sensitive: RCB 0-1 vs. NAT-resistant: RCB 2-3). For subtask 2, AUCs were 0.901 (training), 0.858 (test), 0.808 (internal validation), and 0.819 (external validation). Molecular analysis linked the model's predictive efficacy to tumor cell cycle processes. TME analysis revealed positive correlations between model scores and activated immune cells (M0/M1 macrophages, dendritic cells), and negative correlations with inhibitory cells (M2 macrophages, resting mast cells). Crucially, the model's predictive scores were closely related to tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), with spatial colocalization observed between classification weights and TILs distribution. Significant differences in TILs levels occurred across model score strata, validating the model's biological plausibility in predicting NAT response mechanisms.

conclusionWe developed an interpretable AI model that predicts response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer using H&E slides. The model's predictions are biologically interpretable, correlating with TME dynamics and spatial TIL patterns, offering a novel strategy for personalizing NAT treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTumor Microenvironmentbreast cancerevaluation of therapeutic effectexplainable artificial intelligenceneoadjuvant therapytumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID40990507
PMCPMC12825707

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.