Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176498›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025

Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Classification of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Clinical Data.

Haniyeh Rafiepoor, Alireza Ghorbankhanloo, Kazem Zendehdel, Zahra Zangeneh Madar, Sepideh Hajivalizadeh, Zeinab Hasani, Ali Sarmadi, Behzad Amanpour-Gharaei, Mohammad Amin Barati, Mozafar Saadat and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

12 authors.

Haniyeh RafiepoorCancer Biology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza GhorbankhanlooCancer Biology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Kazem ZendehdelCancer Biology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra Zangeneh MadarSchool of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Sepideh HajivalizadehOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zeinab HasaniSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Ali SarmadiFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Behzad Amanpour-GharaeiCancer Biology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Amin BaratiSchool of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Mozafar SaadatDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Seyed-Ali Sadegh-ZadehDepartment of Computing, School of Digital, Technologies and Arts, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Saeid AmanpourCancer Biology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-0395-418X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsMachine LearningAdultAgedAlgorithmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansIranMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsartificial intelligencebreast cancerconventional modelsmachine learningrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40176498
PMCPMC11965882

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.