ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Early detection and analysis of accurate breast cancer for improved diagnosis using deep supervised learning for enhanced patient outcomes.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Silico identification and optimization of therapeutic peptides against breast cancer via transcriptomic profiling.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Multi-scale evidence chain: Linking environmental BPA exposure to ovarian cancer through integrated omics and experimental models.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Development and clinical validation of a nursing risk prediction model for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Spinal Cord Injury 2.0: Bridging the Gap Between Neurobiology, Technology, and Hope in the Era of Precision Medicine.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Review
- Next-generation oncology: integrative therapeutic frontiers at the crossroads of precision genomics, immuno-engineering, and tumor microenvironment modulation.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Non-destructive detection ofFrontiers in plant science · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.