ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2022
Comparative analysis of classification algorithms on the breast cancer recurrence using machine learning.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and testing of a random forest-based machine learning model for predicting events among breast cancer patients with a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.European journal of medical research · 2023Trial
- Article
- Use of machine learning algorithms to construct models of symptom burden cluster risk in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for predicting breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review of clinical and imaging data.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Machine learning models for predicting prostate cancer recurrence and identifying potential molecular biomarkers.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative evaluation of classification algorithms using Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA) software. The main goal of the paper is to conduct a comprehensive comparison and determine which predictive modelling technique is best for the problem of classifying breast cancer recurrence. The dataset for this study consists of 286 instances (201 instances belong to recurrence class and 85 instances belong to non-recurrence class) and 10 attributes. Comparison analysis is conducted for Naïve Bayes, J48, K*, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) models using different parameters. The performance of the developed models is calculated using the following evaluation metrics: accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, mean absolute error, ROC curves and AUC values. Contribution of the attributes to the classification models is assessed by measuring information gain. Results show that J48 model and the SVM algorithm give the highest accuracy, which is 75.5% and 79.6%, respectively. Implementation of SVM algorithm also shows the highest sensitivity of 99%, while the highest precision is obtained by MLP algorithm which is 79%. In addition, SVM algorithm possesses the lowest mean absolute error. Furthermore, by measuring information gain, it is revealed that a degree of malignant tumour contributes more than other attributes to recurrence of breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35781590What 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.