ArticlePloS one2025
Machine learning-based prediction of distant metastasis risk in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal integration of [Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than 90% of deaths due to breast cancer (BC) are due to metastasis-related complications, with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast being the most common pathologic type of breast cancer and highly susceptible to metastasis to distant organs. BC patients who develop cancer metastases are more likely to have a poor prognosis and poor quality of life, so it is extremely important to recognize and diagnose whether distant metastases have occurred in IDC as early as possible. In this study, we develop a non-invasive breast cancer classification system for detecting cancer metastasis. We used Anaconda-Jupyter notebooks to develop various Python programming modules for text mining, data processing, and machine learning (ML) methods. A risk prediction model was constructed based on four algorithms: Random Forest, XGBoost, Logistic Regression, and SVM. Additionally, we developed a hybrid model based on a voting mechanism using these four algorithms as the base models. The models were compared and evaluated by the following metrics: accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) values. The experimental results show that the hybrid model based on the voting mechanism exhibits the best prediction performance (accuracy: 0.867, precision: 0.929, recall: 0.805, F1-score: 0.856, AUC: 0.94). This stable risk prediction model provides a valuable reference support for doctors in assessing and diagnosing the risk of IDC hematogenous metastasis. It also improves the work efficiency of doctors and strives to provide patients with increased chances of survival.
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.