ArticleCureus2025
Breast Cancer Data Analysis Using Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Breast cancer is one of the most serious diseases and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths for women worldwide. This study evaluates and compares the performance of several supervised machine learning algorithms for breast cancer tumor classification, using a real-world dataset (sourced from Kaggle.com). From an initial 212 observations, the final dataset was reduced to 205 after handling missing values. We employed logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and support vector machines (SVMs) with various kernels, focusing on model accuracy, feature importance, and the impact of dimensionality reduction. All models demonstrated strong performance, with accuracies above 87%. The most effective classifiers were the random forest and polynomial SVM, achieving the highest area under the curve (AUC) values of 96.3% and 96.9%, respectively. Feature importance analysis consistently identified Tumor Size, Involved Lymph Nodes, Metastasis, and Age as the most significant predictors. The high accuracy of simpler models, such as logistic regression and a linear SVM, is attributed to the dataset's inherent linear separability. Our findings also validate the use of principal component analysis (PCA) for feature reduction, as key models maintained high performance on the simplified dataset.
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.