Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41573271›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Predicting and identifying correlates of inequalities in breast cancer screening uptake using national level data from India.

Aleena Tanveer, Raja Hashim Ali, Jitendra Majhi, Moumita Mukherjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Decomposing Oral Cancer Screening Inequalities Across Wealth Index among Indian Women Aged 30-49 Years: Findings From National Family Health Survey-5.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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

4 authors.

Aleena TanveerDepartment of Business, Institute of International Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Raja Hashim AliUniversity of Europe for Applied Sciences, Potsdam, Germany.
Jitendra MajhiAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, India.
Moumita MukherjeeDepartment of Business, Institute of International Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite national screening initiatives, coverage of breast cancer screening is low, and late-stage diagnosis remains a major contributor to mortality among Indian women. Accurate, precise, and actionable prediction of socioeconomic and structural inequities in screening uptake is critical for formulating equitable cancer control policies. This study aimed to apply machine learning to predict determinants of screening uptake, estimate inequalities in uptake and their concentration indices, and identify contributing factors to inequity using concentration index decomposition across economic, educational, and caste gradients. Methods: Cross-sectional National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-2021 data, comprising 68,526 women aged 30-49 years, is used for the study. Levesque's framework of healthcare access directed variable selection across approachability, acceptability, affordability, availability, and appropriateness dimensions to decide on the set of explanatory covariates. We applied three single learners-Logistic Regression (LR), Naïve Bayes (NB), and Decision Tree (DT)-and two ensemble learners-Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost (XGB)-to train on balanced weighted data. Given the risk of overfitting after the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE), predictive performance was validated using 10-fold cross-validation. Five evaluation metrics were compared to select the best learner predicting the screening uptake. Inequality was measured using conventional and algorithm-based concentration indices and decomposed using algorithm-based feature importance and feature-specific inequality scores to estimate contributions to three inequality-health gradients in screening access. Findings: In India, remarkably low (0.9%) screening uptake with clear economic, educational, and social disparities is evident. Although Random Forest and XGBoost performed with higher predictive accuracy (96%) and explainability (AUROC = 0.99), Decision Tree brought stable generalizability (mean AUROC = 0.995) after 10-fold validation. Feature importance results indicate that education, autonomy, interactions with community health workers, provincial and spatial features explain most of the variability. Proximity, transport availability, hesitancy in unaccompanied care seeking, and financial constraints were access barriers with limited contribution to the variation in screening uptake. Concentration index estimates reflect a pro-rich (0.1, Conclusion: Machine learning models can improve decision making, enhancing accuracy and precision in inequity prediction for breast cancer screening uptake and revealing crucial gradients and access barriers shaping breast cancer screening uptake in India. ML-based predictions that offer higher explainability suggest that financial protection, spatial accessibility to health centers, access to education, autonomy, higher contact with community health workers, and community-based awareness programs targeting poor, less educated, socially disadvantaged middle-aged women are likely to smooth the economic, educational disparities in screening coverage, claiming a requirement of deeper investigation with respect to social gradients.

Indexed as

accessibilitybreast cancer screeningconcentration indexconcentration index decompositionhealth inequalityIndiamachine learning

Identifiers

PMID41573271
PMCPMC12820423

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.