Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646886›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2021

Evaluation of Feature Selection Methods for Mammographic Breast Cancer Diagnosis in a Unified Framework.

Chun-Jiang Tian, Jian Lv, Xiang-Feng Xu

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2021. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Call to Action on Assessing and Mitigating Bias in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Mental Health.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Review
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

3 authors.

Chun-Jiang TianDepartment of Radiology, Tianjin Hospital of ITCWM Nankai Hospital, Tianjin 300100, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-9075
Jian LvDepartment of Radiology, Tianjin Hospital of ITCWM Nankai Hospital, Tianjin 300100, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6831-5728
Xiang-Feng XuDepartment of Radiology, Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin 300100, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4597-9481

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over recent years, feature selection (FS) has gained more attention in intelligent diagnosis. This study is aimed at evaluating FS methods in a unified framework for mammographic breast cancer diagnosis. After FS methods generated rank lists according to feature importance, the framework added features incrementally as the input of random forest which performed as the classifier for breast lesion classification. In this study, 10 FS methods were evaluated and the digital database for screening mammography (1104 benign and 980 malignant lesions) was analyzed. The classification performance was quantified with the area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were also considered. Experimental results suggested that both infinite latent FS method (AUC, 0.866 ± 0.028) and RELIEFF (AUC, 0.855 ± 0.020) achieved good prediction (AUC ≥ 0.85) when 6 features were used, followed by correlation-based FS method (AUC, 0.867 ± 0.023) using 7 features and WILCOXON (AUC, 0.887 ± 0.019) using 8 features. The reliability of the diagnosis models was also verified, indicating that correlation-based FS method was generally superior over other methods. Identification of discriminative features among high-throughput ones remains an unavoidable challenge in intelligent diagnosis, and extra efforts should be made toward accurate and efficient feature selection.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMammographyArea Under CurveBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID34646886
PMCPMC8505067

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.