ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Survival analysis in breast cancer: evaluating ensemble learning techniques for prediction.
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.
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.
- Enhanced Fetal Plane Classification in Ultrasound Imaging via Prototypical Networks and Few-Shot Learning.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- A time‑dependent risk prediction model for distant metastasis in early‑stage breast cancer based on explainable ensemble learning: a retrospective cohort study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- A Unified Framework for Survival Prediction: Combining Machine Learning Feature Selection with Traditional Survival Analysis in Heart Failure and METABRIC Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- PatchSight-ImmuneMap-LifeSpan as a unified AI framework for breast cancer diagnosis, immune profiling and prognostic prediction.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-driven identification and immunohistochemical validation of an integrated immune-inflammatory phenotype for disease-free survival stratification in breast cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- A pan-cancer multi-omicFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Comprehensive survival analysis of breast cancer patients: a bayesian network approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Comparison of Random Survival Forest Based-Overall Survival With Deep Learning and Cox Proportional Hazard Models in HER-2-Positive HR-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction model for patients with recurrent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Investigating the role of KARS in lung adenocarcinoma via single-cell RNA sequencing.Discover oncology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.