MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415655898 · doi:10.21037/qims-2024-2903

Deep learning in multi-modal breast cancer data fusion: a literature review

2025· review· en· W4415655898 on OpenAlexaff
Tengyue Li, Yi Pan, Wei Song, Simon Fong, Juntao Gao, Q. Wang, Xin Zhang, Sabah Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningBreast cancerFocus (optics)ScarcityCancerResource (disambiguation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: Recently, there has been a growing interest in the use of deep learning methods within the multi-modal domain of breast cancer research. Integrating multi-modal data for breast cancer prediction can generate richer and more diverse set of information, leading to a greater robustness in prediction outcomes as compared to single-modal approaches. This review comprehensively summarizes the advancements in multi-modal breast cancer research over the past 5 years and critically assesses the related opportunities and challenges, serving as a valuable reference for future studies. The application of deep learning techniques to the processing of multi-modal breast cancer data is discussed in depth, and the latest strategies and potential future directions in this area are examined. Methods: A systematic analysis of studies on deep learning methods for breast cancer diagnosis based on multi-modal data was conducted. A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2019 and April 2025. To ensure the representativeness of the included research, studies were evaluated according to three aspects: types of multi-modal data used, the fusion strategies adopted, and their clinical relevance. Key Content and Findings: This review systematically traces the development of deep learning approaches for multi-modal breast cancer data, from foundational to more advanced methodologies. First, the paper categorizes common data types and core tasks related to breast cancer prediction. Subsequently, it classifies multi-modal data fusion strategies into three types-feature-level fusion, decision-level fusion, and hybrid fusion-providing a detailed explanation of the prediction steps for each category and comparing their effectiveness. Finally, the common challenges in multi-modal breast cancer research and insights into potential directions for future research are identified and discussed. Conclusions: At present, although numerous deep learning-based multi-modal studies on breast cancer have been proposed, multi-modal fusion remains in the exploratory stage. Future research should focus on addressing the scarcity of high-quality public datasets, as well as developing more robust network architectures and adaptive fusion strategies to better capture complementary information across modalities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207