ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing breast cancer prediction: Comparative analysis of ML models and deep learning-based multi-model ensembles on original and synthetic datasets.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Translation readiness of model-based synthetic tabular data in healthcare: a systematic review and governance audit.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women: Insights From Feature Selection of Clinical and Lifestyle Data.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Prediction of Lithium Therapeutic Target Attainment in Adolescents Using an XGBoost Model: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Arthralgia and fever as dominant predictors of Chikungunya confirmation: an explainable artificial intelligence approach.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a machine learning predictive model for early detection of breast cancer.F1000Research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a significant global health concern with rising incidence and mortality rates. Current diagnostic methods face challenges, necessitating improved approaches. This study employs various machine learning (ML) algorithms, including KNN, SVM, ANN, RF, XGBoost, ensemble models, AutoML, and deep learning (DL) techniques, to enhance breast cancer diagnosis. The objective is to compare the efficiency and accuracy of these models using original and synthetic datasets, contributing to the advancement of breast cancer diagnosis. The methodology comprises three phases, each with two stages. In the first stage of each phase, stratified K-fold cross-validation was performed to train and evaluate multiple ML models. The second stage involved DL-based and AutoML-based ensemble strategies to improve prediction accuracy. In the second and third phases, synthetic data generation methods, such as Gaussian Copula and TVAE, were utilized. The KNN model outperformed others on the original dataset, while the AutoML approach using H2OXGBoost using synthetic data also showed high accuracy. These findings underscore the effectiveness of traditional ML models and AutoML in predicting breast cancer. Additionally, the study demonstrated the potential of synthetic data generation methods to improve prediction performance, aiding decision-making in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.
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.