Development and cross-cohort evaluation of a multimodal deep-learning model for ER, PR and HER2 status classification in breast cancer

Background. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 status guide systemic treatment in breast cancer. Multimodal models are rarely benchmarked against key biomarker molecular baselines or evaluated for cross-cohort calibration. We assessed incremental value, dependence on label-proximal HER2 transcripts, and transport of discrimination and calibration. Methods. A model combining whole-slide images, transcriptomes, age and stage was developed in TCGA-BRCA (1051 patients; ER/PR/HER2 analysis sets: 1001/998/1006) and evaluated in CPTAC-BRCA (120 patients; 118/113/95). CPTAC had been observed during earlier development and included 13 HER2-positive cases. Analyses included paired model comparisons, transcript removal, alternative loss functions and recalibration. Internal discrimination used pooled out-of-fold predictions; external discrimination used fold-mean estimates, with ensemble calibration reported separately. Internal calibration and macro-AUC uncertainty were interpreted as exploratory. Results. Internal AUCs were 0.943 for ER, 0.901 for PR, and 0.860 for HER2; external AUCs were 0.952, 0.937, and 0.918, respectively. External macro-AUC was 0.936 for the multimodal model and 0.957 for logistic regression using ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2 (difference -0.021). Removal of the extended 29-transcript 17q12-q21 region changed HER2 AUC by -0.035 [-0.058 to -0.013] (95% CI) internally and by -0.042 [-0.089 to -0.007] externally relative to the baseline multimodal model. For external 15-model ensemble predictions, recalibrated HER2 expected calibration error (ECE) was 0.236, exceeding the ECE reference ceiling of 0.125, while calibration-in-the-large was -1.657 [-2.373 to -1.023] (profile-likelihood 95% CI), indicating systematic overprediction. ER and PR also showed overprediction. In paired fold-mean comparisons, HER2 ECE and Brier score favoured the three-transcript model (ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2). Conclusions. A multimodal deep-learning model achieved high discrimination across cohorts but did not demonstrate clear incremental value over a parsimonious three-transcript baseline, while cross-cohort calibration remained a substantial challenge. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating incremental value, calibration, and clinical utility alongside discrimination when assessing AI-based prediction models for medical use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.761587
Primary Topic
Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Development and cross-cohort evaluation of a multimodal deep-learning model for ER, PR and HER2 status classification in breast cancer

Nguyen Van Hai, Văn Ân Nguyễn, Hai Nam Tran, Thi Bich Van Nguyen et al.
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
preprint

Development and cross-cohort evaluation of a multimodal deep-learning model for ER, PR and HER2 status classification in breast cancer

Nguyen Van Hai, Văn Ân Nguyễn, Hai Nam Tran, Thi Bich Van Nguyen, Dang Hung Tran, Quang Anh Nguyễn, Dang Quynh Anh, Binh Minh Tran
preprint en

Abstract

Background. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 status guide systemic treatment in breast cancer. Multimodal models are rarely benchmarked against key biomarker molecular baselines or evaluated for cross-cohort calibration. We assessed incremental value, dependence on label-proximal HER2 transcripts, and transport of discrimination and calibration. Methods. A model combining whole-slide images, transcriptomes, age and stage was developed in TCGA-BRCA (1051 patients; ER/PR/HER2 analysis sets: 1001/998/1006) and evaluated in CPTAC-BRCA (120 patients; 118/113/95). CPTAC had been observed during earlier development and included 13 HER2-positive cases. Analyses included paired model comparisons, transcript removal, alternative loss functions and recalibration. Internal discrimination used pooled out-of-fold predictions; external discrimination used fold-mean estimates, with ensemble calibration reported separately. Internal calibration and macro-AUC uncertainty were interpreted as exploratory. Results. Internal AUCs were 0.943 for ER, 0.901 for PR, and 0.860 for HER2; external AUCs were 0.952, 0.937, and 0.918, respectively. External macro-AUC was 0.936 for the multimodal model and 0.957 for logistic regression using ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2 (difference -0.021). Removal of the extended 29-transcript 17q12-q21 region changed HER2 AUC by -0.035 [-0.058 to -0.013] (95% CI) internally and by -0.042 [-0.089 to -0.007] externally relative to the baseline multimodal model. For external 15-model ensemble predictions, recalibrated HER2 expected calibration error (ECE) was 0.236, exceeding the ECE reference ceiling of 0.125, while calibration-in-the-large was -1.657 [-2.373 to -1.023] (profile-likelihood 95% CI), indicating systematic overprediction. ER and PR also showed overprediction. In paired fold-mean comparisons, HER2 ECE and Brier score favoured the three-transcript model (ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2). Conclusions. A multimodal deep-learning model achieved high discrimination across cohorts but did not demonstrate clear incremental value over a parsimonious three-transcript baseline, while cross-cohort calibration remained a substantial challenge. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating incremental value, calibration, and clinical utility alongside discrimination when assessing AI-based prediction models for medical use.

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
The University of Sydney (AU), Hanoi Medical University (VN), UNSW Sydney (AU), Hanoi Medical University Hospital (VN), Hanoi University of Industry (VN), Macquarie University (AU)
Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon