MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414282987 · doi:10.3390/targets3030029

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as a Functional Biomarker in Breast Cancer: Correlation of Enhancement Patterns with Ki-67 and Histological Grade

2025· article· en· W4414282987 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Balbino, Manuela Montatore, Federica Masino, Antonietta Ancona, Francesca Anna Carpagnano, Riccardo Guglielmi, Giuseppe Guglielmi

Bibliographic record

VenueTargets · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyBreast cancerHistologyCorrelationLesionBiomarkerImaging biomarkerBreast tumor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) combines anatomical and functional imaging, showing promise in breast cancer diagnosis. Despite well-established lesion detection accuracy, few studies have investigated the link between CESM enhancement patterns and tumor aggressiveness biomarkers. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 100 patients (mean age 59.5 years) undergoing CESM with complete histopathological data. Lesions were categorized by enhancement intensity (high, medium, low) and contrast homogeneity (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous), correlated with Ki-67 index and histological grade. Results: Lesion size measured by CESM closely matched histology (mean 2.16 cm vs. 2.25 cm). Mass-like lesions corresponded mainly to invasive ductal carcinoma, while non-mass patterns aligned with lobular or in situ carcinomas. Enhancement intensity correlated moderately with Ki-67 (Spearman ρ = 0.56, p < 0.001), and contrast heterogeneity showed a weaker but significant correlation with tumor grade (ρ = 0.22, p < 0.05). Conclusions: CESM accurately assesses tumor size and provides functional insight into tumor biology. Enhancement intensity may serve as a non-invasive proliferation marker, while contrast heterogeneity offers additional prognostic data, supporting CESM’s role in personalized breast cancer management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTargetsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207