ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Understanding Cancer Risk Among Bangladeshi Women: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach to Socio-Reproductive Factors Using Tertiary Hospital Data.
Article in Healthcare (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.
- Understanding Delays in Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Bangladesh: A Facility-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Influence of age, body mass index and family income on the health Quality of Life among the breast cancer patients in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer poses a significant health challenge in Bangladesh, where limited screening and unique reproductive patterns contribute to delayed diagnoses and subtype-specific disparities. While reproductive risk factors such as age at menarche, parity, and contraceptive use are well studied in high-income countries, their associations with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remain underexplored in low-resource settings.
methodsA case-control study was conducted at the National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital (NICRH) including 486 histopathologically confirmed breast cancer cases (246 HR+, 240 TNBC) and 443 cancer-free controls. Socio-demographic and reproductive data were collected through structured interviews. Machine learning models-including Logistic Regression, Lasso, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, and XGBoost-were trained using stratified five-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated using sensitivity, F1-score, and Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC). To interpret model predictions and quantify the contribution of individual features, we employed Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values.
resultsXGBoost achieved the highest overall performance (F1-score = 0.750), and SHAP-based interpretability revealed key predictors for each subtype. Rural residence, low education (≤5 years), and undernutrition were significant predictors across subtypes. Cesarean delivery and multiple abortions were more predictive of TNBC, while urban residence, employment, and higher education were more predictive of HR+. Age at menarche and age at first childbirth showed decreasing predictive importance with increasing age for HR+, while larger gaps between marriage and childbirth were more predictive of TNBC.
conclusionsOur findings underscore the value of machine learning coupled with SHAP-based explainability in identifying context-specific risk factors for breast cancer subtypes in resource-limited settings. This approach enhances transparency and supports the development of targeted public health interventions to reduce breast cancer disparities in Bangladesh.
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.