ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Breast cancer diagnosis using the fast learning network algorithm.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 1D-CNN with advanced data augmentation for robust speech emotion recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- ETNeXt: integrated feature engineering and classification framework for BLDC motor fault detection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel class-attention transformer-driven feature fusion technique-based speech disorder classification.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- An integrated approach of feature selection and machine learning for early detection of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Depression recognition using voice-based pre-training model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Multimodal Approach for Detection and Assessment of Depression Using Text, Audio and Video.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A novel fusion of genetic grey wolf optimization and kernel extreme learning machines for precise diabetic eye disease classification.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of machine learning (ML) and data mining algorithms in the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) has recently received a lot of attention. The majority of these efforts, however, still require improvement since either they were not statistically evaluated or they were evaluated using insufficient assessment metrics, or both. One of the most recent and effective ML algorithms, fast learning network (FLN), may be seen as a reputable and efficient approach for classifying data; however, it has not been applied to the problem of BC diagnosis. Therefore, this study proposes the FLN algorithm in order to improve the accuracy of the BC diagnosis. The FLN algorithm has the capability to a) eliminate overfitting, b) solve the issues of both binary and multiclass classification, and c) perform like a kernel-based support vector machine with a structure of the neural network. In this study, two BC databases (Wisconsin Breast Cancer Database (WBCD) and Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer (WDBC)) were used to assess the performance of the FLN algorithm. The results of the experiment demonstrated the great performance of the suggested FLN method, which achieved an average of accuracy 98.37%, precision 95.94%, recall 99.40%, F-measure 97.64%, G-mean 97.65%, MCC 96.44%, and specificity 97.85% using the WBCD, as well as achieved an average of accuracy 96.88%, precision 94.84%, recall 96.81%, F-measure 95.80%, G-mean 95.81%, MCC 93.35%, and specificity 96.96% using the WDBC database. This suggests that the FLN algorithm is a reliable classifier for diagnosing BC and may be useful for resolving other application-related problems in the healthcare sector.
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.