Breathprints for Breast Cancer: A Non‐Invasive Approach to BI‐RADS 4 Risk Stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women, and early detection is critical for improving outcomes. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) standardizes reporting, but the BI-RADS 4 category presents a major challenge, with malignancy risk ranging from 2% to 95%. Consequently, most women in this category undergo biopsies that ultimately prove unnecessary. This study evaluated whether exhaled breath analysis could distinguish malignant from benign findings in BI-RADS 4 patients. Methods: Participants referred to the McGill University Health Centre Breast Center with BI-RADS 3–5 findings provided multiple breath specimens. Breathprints were captured using an eNose powered breathalyzer , and diagnoses were confirmed by imaging and pathology. An autoencoder-based model fused the breath data with BI-RADS scores to predict malignancy. Model performance was assessed using repeated cross-validation with ensemble voting, prioritizing sensitivity to minimize false negatives. Results: The breath specimens of eighty-five participants, including sixty-eight patients with biopsy-confirmed benign lesions and seventeen patients with biopsy-confirmed breast cancer within the BI-RADS 4 cohort are analyzed. The model achieved a mean sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 75%, and a negative predictive value of 97%. Results were consistent across BI-RADS 4 subcategories, with particularly strong sensitivity in higher-risk groups. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study shows that exhaled breath analysis can reliably differentiate malignant from benign findings in BI-RADS 4 patients. With its high negative predictive value, this approach may serve as a non-invasive rule-out tool to reduce unnecessary biopsies, lessen patient burden, and improve diagnostic decision-making. Larger, multi-center studies are warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".