ArticleScientific reports2025
A simple and fast explainable artificial intelligence-based pre-screening tool for breast cancer tumor malignancy detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning and Explainable AI for Breast Cancer Patient Prioritization: An Intelligent Decision-Support Framework.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An interpretable machine learning model for predicting sepsis risk in ICU patients with non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage: development and validation using the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early and accurate detection of tumor malignancy in breast cancer is crucial for effective patient management. This study developed an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)-based, fast, and low-data-requirement pre-screening tool for breast cancer malignancy classification. Using a Kaggle dataset with 9 clinical and demographic features from 213 patients, 8 machine learning algorithms were compared based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, Roc Curve (AUC), and Matthews correlation coefficient. Ensemble models, specifically RUSBoost, and individual decision trees both achieved the highest performance with ~ 91.7% accuracy. However, the decision tree was selected for its high explainability, low computational cost, and clinical practicality. The model provides verbal decision rules: (1) malignancy classification with lymph node involvement, (2) malignancy inference regardless of tumor size in the presence of metastasis, and (3) large tumor size with advanced age indicating malignancy without lymph node involvement or metastasis. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis validated and detailed the model's decision-making process. This model shows potential for integration into clinical decision support systems, offering rapid, reliable pre-screening with minimal data. Future validation studies with larger, diverse populations are planned to enhance generalizability.
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.