ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Classification of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Clinical Data.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer (BC) is a major global health concern with rising incidence and mortality rates in many developing countries. Effective BC risk assessment models are crucial for prevention and early detection. While the Gail model, a traditional logistic regression-based model, has been broadly used, its predictive performance may be limited by its linear assumptions. With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical sciences, various complex machine learning algorithms have been developed for risk prediction, including for BC.
aimsThis study aims to compare the quality of AI-based models with the traditional Gail model in assessing BC risk using a population dataset. It also evaluates the performance of these models in predicting BC risk. METHODS AND
resultsThis study involved 942 newly diagnosed BC patients and 975 healthy controls at the Cancer Institute in IKH hospital Complex, Tehran. Ten classification algorithms were applied to the dataset. The accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and feature importance in the machine learning algorithms were assessed and compared to previous studies for evaluation. The study found that AI algorithms alone did not significantly improve predictability compared to the Gail model. However, the importance of variables varied significantly among the AI algorithms. Understanding feature importance and interactions is crucial in AI modeling in order to enhance accuracy and identify critical risk factors.
conclusionThis study concluded that, in BC risk prediction, incorporating specific risk factors, such as genetic and image-related variables, may be necessary to further enhance accuracy in BC risk prediction models. Furthermore, it is crucial to address modeling issues in models with a restricted number of features for future research.
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.