MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416985960 · doi:10.1038/s41698-025-01134-x

Quantitative ultrasound imaging for predicting response and guiding personalized neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: randomized phase 2 clinical trial results

2025· article· en· W4416985960 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Moore-Palhares, David Alberico, Adrian Wai Chan, Daniel DiCenzo, Lakshmanan Sannachi, Archya Dasgupta, Maria Lourdes Anzola Pena, Sonal Gandhi, Rossanna C. Pezo, Andrea Eisen, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, Carlos González, Ellen Warner, Frances C. Wright, Nicole Look-Hong, Amanda Roberts, Ali Sadeghi‐Naini, Belinda Curpen, Mia Skarpathiotakis, Carrie Betel, Michael C. Kolios, Maureen Trudeau, Gregory J. Czarnota

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Precision Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversitySunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreYork UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTerry Fox Research InstituteSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerChemotherapyClinical trialUltrasoundStage (stratigraphy)Breast imagingUltrasound imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) detects early tumor microstructural changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), enabling personalized treatment adaptation. This study assessed the accuracy of machine learning models using serial QUS data to predict treatment response and evaluated their feasibility for guiding treatment personalization. This single-center, phase 2 randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04050228, Dec/2019) enrolled stage II-III breast cancer patients planned for standard NAC. QUS imaging was performed at baseline and week 4, with the latter used for response prediction. Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard or experimental arms, stratified by hormone receptor status. In the standard arm, oncologists were blinded to QUS results. In the experimental arm, predictions were disclosed to allow treatment modification at week 4. Final response was determined histopathologically (>30% tumor reduction or <5% cellularity). Between June 2018 and September 2023, 146 patients were enrolled, and 120 randomized (standard: 57, experimental: 63). Response rates were 93.0% (standard) and 96.8% (experimental). The model achieved 92% accuracy, 83% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and 99% positive predictive value. In the experimental arm, 8/63 patients were predicted non-responders, with 4 undergoing treatment modification. QUS-based machine learning enables accurate early response prediction and supports adaptive treatment strategies in future trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Precision OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207