ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Explainable and uncertainty-aware ensemble framework with causal analysis for breast cancer detection.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the main causes of cancer deaths around the world and is known for its aggressive growth and ability to spread. While machine learning has shown good results for diagnosis, most existing methods do not handle uncertainty or explain their predictions clearly. In this study, we present an integrated framework that combines uncertainty-aware ensemble learning with causal feature analysis and multimodal explainability for breast cancer prediction. The framework uses a mix of Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), random forest, and gradient boosting classifiers that include uncertainty estimation so that the model can mark predictions that are less confident. It also applies causal analysis to detect possible clinical confounders and uses SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations), permutation importance, and feature attribution for interpretation. Tests on two public datasets showed strong and consistent performance. On the UCTH Clinical Dataset, the model reached an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97%, an accuracy of 0.95%, and an F1 score of 0.94%, with 100% precision for high confidence cases and no false positives. On the Breast Cancer Wisconsin dataset, it achieved an AUC of 0.99, an accuracy of 0.94%, and an F1 score of 0.92%, which increased to 0.98% accuracy and 0.98% F1 score when only certain predictions were considered. Causal analysis pointed out important clinical confounders like lymph node involvement, tumor size, and metastasis, while fairness tests showed balanced results across demographic groups. Overall, the framework combines uncertainty estimation and causal interpretability to give predictions that are both accurate and trustworthy. It provides clinicians with clear confidence levels for every prediction and supports transparent decision-making that can reduce diagnostic errors and improve reliability in clinical use.
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.