ArticleScientific reports2024
Unlocking the complete blood count as a risk stratification tool for breast cancer using machine learning: a large scale retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Weighted Neural Network Model Based on Laboratory Tests for Identifying Lymph Node Metastases in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinomas.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Discriminating Breast Cancer Patients by Spectral Analysis of Arterial Pulse Waveforms.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2026Article
- Multicentric Validation of a Complete Blood Count-Based Model for Breast Cancer Risk Stratification in Women Age 40-49 Years.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Integrated ESR and PLT-H Measurement Using the BC-6800 Plus Hematology Analyzer: A Comprehensive Analytical Evaluation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Systemic immune-inflammatory index for the prediction of the survival in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.iScience · 2026Article
- Biomarkers and genetic determinants of cardiac sarcoidosis: current status, the unmet needs and future perspectives.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- AI-driven pre-screening for colorectal cancer using complete blood counts: toward broader population impact.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Cancer screening: recent developments and future directions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Preoperative systemic inflammatory biomarkers can improve recurrence prediction of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer after endoscopic resection - a prospective observational study.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2025Article
- Deep Learning in Cytopathology: The Potential for Multimodal Synergy of Clinical and Cytological Input Data.Journal of cytologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimizing early breast cancer (BC) detection requires effective risk assessment tools. This retrospective study from Brazil showcases the efficacy of machine learning in discerning complex patterns within routine blood tests, presenting a globally accessible and cost-effective approach for risk evaluation. We analyzed complete blood count (CBC) tests from 396,848 women aged 40-70, who underwent breast imaging or biopsies within six months after their CBC test. Of these, 2861 (0.72%) were identified as cases: 1882 with BC confirmed by anatomopathological tests, and 979 with highly suspicious imaging (BI-RADS 5). The remaining 393,987 participants (99.28%), with BI-RADS 1 or 2 results, were classified as controls. The database was divided into modeling (including training and validation) and testing sets based on diagnostic certainty. The testing set comprised cases confirmed by anatomopathology and controls cancer-free for 4.5-6.5 years post-CBC. Our ridge regression model, incorporating neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, red blood cells, and age, achieved an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.64-0.65). We also demonstrate that these results are slightly better than those from a boosting machine learning model, LightGBM, plus having the benefit of being fully interpretable. Using the probabilistic output from this model, we divided the study population into four risk groups: high, moderate, average, and low risk, which obtained relative ratios of BC of 1.99, 1.32, 1.02, and 0.42, respectively. The aim of this stratification was to streamline prioritization, potentially improving the early detection of breast cancer, particularly in resource-limited environments. As a risk stratification tool, this model offers the potential for personalized breast cancer screening by prioritizing women based on their individual risk, thereby indicating a shift from a broad population strategy.
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.