ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2020
Robust Estimation of Breast Cancer Incidence Risk in Presence of Incomplete or Inaccurate Information.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Classification Success Rates of Different Machine Learning Algorithms in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Study the Effect of the Risk Factors in the Estimation of the Breast Cancer Risk Score Using Machine Learning.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the robustness of multiple machine learning classifiers for breast cancer risk estimation in the presence of incomplete or inaccurate information. DATA AND
methodsOpen data for this study was obtained from the BCSC Data Resource (http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/). We conducted two ablation-type experiments to compare the robustness of different classifiers where we randomly switched known information to missing with a missing probability of pm in one experiment, and randomly corrupted the existing information with a probability of pc in another experiment. We considered three prominent machine-learning classifiers such as Logistic regression (LR), Random Forests (RF) and a custom Neural Network (NN) architecture and compared their degradation of discrimination performance as a function of increasing probability of missing or inaccurate data.
resultsLR, RF and custom NN resulted in an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.645, 0.643 and 0.649, respectively, on a test set with 500,000 total observations. When we manipulated the data by varying probabilities pm and pc from 0 to 1, NN resulted in better performance in terms of AUC compared to RF and LR as long as less than half the data was missing/inaccurate (that is, for values of pm < 0.5 and pc < 0.5). However, for missing (pm) or corruption (pc) probabilities above 0.5, LR gave similar performance as the custom NN. RF resulted in overall poorer performance when the data had additional missing or incorrect entries.
conclusionIn cases where the input information is missing or inaccurate, our experiments show that the proposed custom NN provides reliable risk estimates in medical datasets like BCSC. These results are particularly important in health care applications where not every attribute of the individual participant might be available.<br />.
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.