ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2019
Machine learning techniques for personalized breast cancer risk prediction: comparison with the BCRAT and BOADICEA models.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of prediction models for risk of breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Breast cancer risk prediction using machine learning: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Health economics evaluation of artificial intelligence in the field of oncology: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Improving preventive screening efficiency: A population-based model of age-specific mammographic density for breast Cancer detection in Saudi Arabia.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Classification of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Clinical Data.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for osteoporosis risk prediction in Korean women.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Early and hereditary breast cancer: advances in risk stratification and imaging approaches.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
- Accelerated hazard prediction based on age time-scale for women diagnosed with breast cancer using a deep learning method.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Application of machine-learning model to optimize colonic adenoma detection in India.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Observational
- Breast Cancer Detection and Analytics Using Hybrid CNN and Extreme Learning Machine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting mortality and recurrence in colorectal cancer: Comparative assessment of predictive models.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Screening ovarian cancer by using risk factors: machine learning assists.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer Classification Using Synthesized Deep Learning Model with Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sentiment analysis in multilingual context: Comparative analysis of machine learning and hybrid deep learning models.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Molecular Characterization and Landscape of Breast cancer Models from a multi-omics Perspective.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2023Review
- Cancer incidence and mortality in Brunei Darussalam, 2011 to 2020.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- A Hybrid Algorithm of ML and XAI to Prevent Breast Cancer: A Strategy to Support Decision Making.Cancers · 2023Article
- Guiding principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence tools for healthcare.Communications medicine · 2023Review
- Combining Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComprehensive breast cancer risk prediction models enable identifying and targeting women at high-risk, while reducing interventions in those at low-risk. Breast cancer risk prediction models used in clinical practice have low discriminatory accuracy (0.53-0.64). Machine learning (ML) offers an alternative approach to standard prediction modeling that may address current limitations and improve accuracy of those tools. The purpose of this study was to compare the discriminatory accuracy of ML-based estimates against a pair of established methods-the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) models.
methodsWe quantified and compared the performance of eight different ML methods to the performance of BCRAT and BOADICEA using eight simulated datasets and two retrospective samples: a random population-based sample of U.S. breast cancer patients and their cancer-free female relatives (N = 1143), and a clinical sample of Swiss breast cancer patients and cancer-free women seeking genetic evaluation and/or testing (N = 2481).
resultsPredictive accuracy (AU-ROC curve) reached 88.28% using ML-Adaptive Boosting and 88.89% using ML-random forest versus 62.40% with BCRAT for the U.S. population-based sample. Predictive accuracy reached 90.17% using ML-adaptive boosting and 89.32% using ML-Markov chain Monte Carlo generalized linear mixed model versus 59.31% with BOADICEA for the Swiss clinic-based sample.
conclusionsThere was a striking improvement in the accuracy of classification of women with and without breast cancer achieved with ML algorithms compared to the state-of-the-art model-based approaches. High-accuracy prediction techniques are important in personalized medicine because they facilitate stratification of prevention strategies and individualized clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.