Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567684›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

Early detection and analysis of accurate breast cancer for improved diagnosis using deep supervised learning for enhanced patient outcomes.

Mandika Chetry, Ruiling Feng, Samra Babar, Hao Sun, Imran Zafar, Mohamed Mohany, Hassan Imran Afridi, Najeeb Ullah Khan, Ijaz Ali, Muhammad Shafiq and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Non-destructive detection ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
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

11 authors.

Mandika Chetry *Regenerative Medicine, International Association of Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine, New Delhi, India.
Ruiling Feng *Department of Radiation Oncology, Shunde Hospital of Southern Medical University, Foshan, China.
Samra BabarDepartment of Biochemistry, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Punjab, Pakistan.
Hao SunFaculty of Science, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spanish National Research Council (UAM-CSIC), Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Imran ZafarDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, The University of Faisalabad (TUF), Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan.
Mohamed MohanyDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hassan Imran AfridiNational Center of Excellence in Analytical Chemistry, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan.
Najeeb Ullah KhanInstitute of Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering, University of Agriculture Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Ijaz AliCentre for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait.
Muhammad ShafiqDepartment of Pharmacology, Research Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacology, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4346-5903
Sabir KhanDepartment of Dermatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) is essential for effective treatment and improved prognosis. This study compares the performance of various machine learning (ML) algorithms, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), logistic regression (LR), support vector machines (SVMs), and Gaussian naive Bayes (GNB), on two key datasets, Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer (WDBC) and Breast Cancer Histopathological Image Classification (BreaKHis). For the BreaKHis dataset, the CNN achieved an impressive accuracy of 92%, with precision, recall, and F1 score values of 91%, 93%, and 91%, respectively. In contrast, LR achieved 88% accuracy, with corresponding precision, recall, and F1 score values of 86%, 87%, and 89%, respectively. SVM and GNB demonstrated 90% and 84% accuracy, respectively, with similar precision, recall, and F1-score metric performances. In the WDBC dataset, LR achieved the highest accuracy of 97.5%, with nearly 97% values for precision, recall, and F1 score. In contrast, CNN attained 96% accuracy with equal recall, precision, and F1 score values of 96%. SVM and GNB followed closely with 95% and 94% accuracy, respectively. Minimising the false negative rate (FNR) and false omission rate (FOR) is vital for improving model reliability, with the LR excelling in the WDBC dataset (FNR: 5.9%, FOR: 4.8%) and the CNN performing best in the BreaKHis dataset (FNR: 8.3%, FOR: 7.0%). The results demonstrate that CNN outperforms traditional models across both datasets, highlighting its potential for early and accurate BC detection.

Indexed as

AIBreaKHisBreast cancerCancer diagnosisConvolutional neural networkDeep learningDeep supervised learningImage classificationLogistic regressionWDBC

Identifiers

PMID40567684
PMCPMC12190644

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.