Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30902088›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Predicting factors for survival of breast cancer patients using machine learning techniques.

Mogana Darshini Ganggayah, Nur Aishah Taib, Yip Cheng Har, Pietro Lio, Sarinder Kaur Dhillon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Assessment of transformer-based AI in clinical oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  13. Advancements in Cancer Survival Prediction: A Systematic Review of Classical and Modern Approaches.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mogana Darshini GanggayahData Science and Bioinformatics Laboratory, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nur Aishah TaibDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yip Cheng HarDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Pietro LioDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0FD, England.
Sarinder Kaur DhillonData Science and Bioinformatics Laboratory, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. sarinder@um.edu.my.ORCID 0000-0003-1922-2044

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is one of the most common diseases in women worldwide. Many studies have been conducted to predict the survival indicators, however most of these analyses were predominantly performed using basic statistical methods. As an alternative, this study used machine learning techniques to build models for detecting and visualising significant prognostic indicators of breast cancer survival rate.

methodsA large hospital-based breast cancer dataset retrieved from the University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (n = 8066) with diagnosis information between 1993 and 2016 was used in this study. The dataset contained 23 predictor variables and one dependent variable, which referred to the survival status of the patients (alive or dead). In determining the significant prognostic factors of breast cancer survival rate, prediction models were built using decision tree, random forest, neural networks, extreme boost, logistic regression, and support vector machine. Next, the dataset was clustered based on the receptor status of breast cancer patients identified via immunohistochemistry to perform advanced modelling using random forest. Subsequently, the important variables were ranked via variable selection methods in random forest. Finally, decision trees were built and validation was performed using survival analysis.

resultsIn terms of both model accuracy and calibration measure, all algorithms produced close outcomes, with the lowest obtained from decision tree (accuracy = 79.8%) and the highest from random forest (accuracy = 82.7%). The important variables identified in this study were cancer stage classification, tumour size, number of total axillary lymph nodes removed, number of positive lymph nodes, types of primary treatment, and methods of diagnosis.

conclusionInterestingly the various machine learning algorithms used in this study yielded close accuracy hence these methods could be used as alternative predictive tools in the breast cancer survival studies, particularly in the Asian region. The important prognostic factors influencing survival rate of breast cancer identified in this study, which were validated by survival curves, are useful and could be translated into decision support tools in the medical domain.

Indexed as

Decision TreesNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector MachineAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisData scienceDecision treeFactors influencing survival of breast cancerMachine learningRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID30902088
PMCPMC6431077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.