Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32856859›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2020

Robust Estimation of Breast Cancer Incidence Risk in Presence of Incomplete or Inaccurate Information.

Siva Teja Kakileti, Geetha Manjunath, Andre Dekker, Leonard Wee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Siva Teja KakiletiNiramai Health Analytix Pvt Ltd., Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Geetha ManjunathNiramai Health Analytix Pvt Ltd., Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastro Clinic · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031C
6 · The paper itself

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

Data Interpretation, StatisticalMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedPrognosisROC CurveUnited StatesArtificial Neural NetworksBreast cancer riskinaccurate dataMachine Learningmissing values

Identifiers

PMID32856859
PMCPMC7771951
OpenAlexW3082883012

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.