Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39145224›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Survival analysis in breast cancer: evaluating ensemble learning techniques for prediction.

Gonca Buyrukoğlu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A pan-cancer multi-omicFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

1 author.

Gonca BuyrukoğluDepartment of Statistics/ Faculty of Science, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is most commonly faced with form of cancer amongst women worldwide. In spite of the fact that the breast cancer research and awareness have gained considerable momentum, there is still no one treatment due to disease heterogeneity. Survival data may be of specific interest in breast cancer studies to understand its dynamic and complex trajectories. This study copes with the most important covariates affecting the disease progression. The study utilizes the German Breast Cancer Study Group 2 (GBSG2) and the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium dataset (METABRIC) datasets. In both datasets, interests lie in relapse of the disease and the time when the relapse happens. The three models, namely the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, random survival forest (RSF) and conditional inference forest (Cforest) were employed to analyse the breast cancer datasets. The goal of this study is to apply these methods in prediction of breast cancer progression and compare their performances based on two different estimation methods: the bootstrap estimation and the bootstrap .632 estimation. The model performance was evaluated in concordance index (C-index) and prediction error curves (pec) for discrimination. The Cox PH model has a lower C-index and bigger prediction error compared to the RSF and the Cforest approach for both datasets. The analysis results of GBSG2 and METABRIC datasets reveal that the RSF and the Cforest algorithms provide non-parametric alternatives to Cox PH model for estimation of the survival probability of breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

C-indexConditional inference forestGerman Breast Cancer Study Group 2Integrated Brier scoreMETABRICPrediction error curveRandom survival forest

Identifiers

PMID39145224
PMCPMC11323082

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.