ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Development and validation of an interpretable ultrasound radiomics model for benign and malignant classification of breast lesions: a multicenter large-sample study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a combined ultrasound-based radiomics-clinical model for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 3142 patients from eight hospitals between February 2012 and September 2024 were included in this multicenter retrospective development and validation study, with an additional single-center prospective test cohort. Lesions were manually segmented, and radiomics features were automatically extracted to construct five machine learning models. The best-performing radiomics model was combined with clinical features to build a combined model. Model performance and its impact on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-based biopsy decisions were evaluated.
resultsLogistic regression (LR) showed the best radiomics performance, with area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.83, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.82 across the training, internal test, external test, and prospective test sets. The clinical model achieved AUCs of 0.87, 0.85, 0.87, and 0.86, whereas the combined model achieved AUCs of 0.92, 0.90, 0.92, and 0.93, significantly outperforming both single-modality models (all p < 0.01). Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed that the combined model had a higher net benefit than the other models across a broad range of threshold probabilities (0.05-0.95) in this study. Performance remained stable across lesion size and age subgroups. In the reclassification analysis, the model suggested the potential to influence biopsy recommendations without a significant reduction in sensitivity and to increase the malignancy yield in BI-RADS 4a. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analysis provided clinically interpretable feature contributions.
conclusionThe interpretable ultrasound-based radiomics model enables reliable, noninvasive breast lesion diagnosis and may reduce unnecessary biopsies. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This work developed an interpretable radiomics-clinical combined model in a multicenter retrospective development and validation study, with additional testing in a single-center prospective cohort, and may support breast lesion risk stratification and biopsy decision-making after further prospective clinical utility evaluation. KEY POINTS: Conventional ultrasound diagnosis of breast cancer shows limited specificity. A multicenter radiomics-clinical combined model showed improved diagnostic performance, with additional validation in a prospective test cohort.
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.