ArticlePloS one2024
Performance assessment of hybrid machine learning approaches for breast cancer and recurrence prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Management in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: From Diagnosis to De-Escalation.Cancers · 2026Review
- A population based optimization of convolutional neural networks for chronic kidney disease prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of hybrid machine learning approach for predicting survival in patients with cervical cancer: a SEER-based population study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Predicting Breast Cancer Relapse from Histopathological Images with Ensemble Machine Learning Models.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a major health concern for women everywhere and a major killer of women. Malignant tumors may be distinguished from benign ones, allowing for early diagnosis of this disease. Therefore, doctors need an accurate method of diagnosing tumors as either malignant or benign. Even if therapy begins immediately after diagnosis, some cancer cells may persist in the body, increasing the risk of a recurrence. Metastasis and recurrence are the leading causes of death from breast cancer. Therefore, detecting a return of breast cancer early has become a pressing medical issue. Evaluating and contrasting various Machine Learning (ML) techniques for breast cancer and recurrence prediction is crucial to choosing the best successful method. Inaccurate forecasts are common when using datasets with a large number of attributes. This study addresses the need for effective feature selection and optimization methods by introducing Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), in response to the limitations observed in existing approaches. In this research, the performance evaluation of methods is enhanced by employing the RFE and GWO, considering the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer (WDBC) and Wisconsin Prognostic Breast Cancer (WPBC) datasets taken from the UCI-ML repository. Various preprocessing techniques are applied to raw data, including imputation, scaling, and others. In the second step, relevant feature correlations are used with RFE to narrow down candidate discriminative features. The GWO chooses the best possible combination of attributes for the most accurate result in the next step. We use seven ML classifiers in both datasets to make a binary decision. On the WDBC and WPBC datasets, several experiments have shown accuracies of 98.25% and 93.27%, precisions of 98.13% and 95.56%, sensitivities of 99.06% and 96.63%, specificities of 96.92% and 73.33%, F1-scores of 98.59% and 96.09% and AUCs of 0.982 and 0.936, respectively. The hybrid approach's superior feature selection improved the accuracy of breast cancer performance indicators and recurrence classification.
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.