ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Extracting Knowledge from Machine Learning Models to Diagnose Breast Cancer.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explored the application of explainable machine learning models to enhance breast cancer diagnosis using serum biomarkers, contrary to many studies that focus on medical images and demographic data. The primary objective was to develop models that are not only accurate but also provide insights into the factors driving predictions, addressing the need for trustworthy AI in healthcare. Several classification models were evaluated, including OneR, JRIP, the FURIA, J48, the ADTree, and the Random Forest, all of which are known for their explainability. The dataset included a variety of biomarkers, such as electrolytes, metal ions, marker proteins, enzymes, lipid profiles, peptide hormones, steroid hormones, and hormone receptors. The Random Forest model achieved the highest accuracy at 99.401%, followed closely by JRIP, the FURIA, and the ADTree at 98.802%. OneR and J48 achieved 98.204% accuracy. Notably, the models identified oxytocin as a key predictive biomarker, with most models featuring it in their rules. Other significant parameters included GnRH, β-endorphin, vasopressin, IRAP, and APB, as well as factors like iron, cholinesterase, the total protein, progesterone, 5-nucleotidase, and the BMI, which are considered clinically relevant to breast cancer pathogenesis. This study discusses the roles of the identified parameters in cancer development, thus underscoring the potential of explainable machine learning models for enhancing early breast cancer diagnosis by focusing on explainability and the use of serum biomarkers.The combination of both can lead to improved early detection and personalized treatments, emphasizing the potential of these methods in clinical settings. The identified markers also provide additional research and therapeutic targets for breast cancer pathogenesis and a deep understanding of their interactions, advancing personalized approaches to breast cancer management.
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.