ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2026
Performance of Statistical and Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models for Advanced Breast Cancer.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning enables complex risk prediction models, but comparative performance with statistical approaches remains context-dependent. We compared statistical and machine learning models for predicting advanced breast cancer risk.
methodsUsing data from 968,178 women (40-74 years) undergoing 2,796,459 annual or 812,126 biennial screening mammograms (2005-2019) in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, we cross-validated models predicting advanced breast cancer within 12 months (annual) or 24 months (biennial) following screening. Models included conventional logistic regression, regularized regressions [least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), elastic net], and machine learning methods (random forests, gradient boosting), considering a modest number of clinical and demographic predictors. Performance was assessed using calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsDiscrimination was similar across models (AUC 0.677-0.690). Calibration differences were more pronounced. Regularized regressions achieved the most favorable calibration overall and across racial and ethnic groups, with an AUC of 0.689 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.676-0.701]. Gradient boosting showed a comparable AUC but suboptimal calibration (calibration slope 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20). Conventional logistic regression had a slightly lower AUC (0.683; 95% CI, 0.671-0.696) and a calibration slope of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Regression-based approaches were generally well calibrated across racial and ethnic groups (expected-to-observed event ratio 0.96-1.03; calibration intercept -0.03 to 0.04), with some subgroup deviations in calibration slopes (<1).
conclusionsFor predicting advanced breast cancers, regularized regression demonstrated similar discrimination and generally more favorable calibration than other approaches. IMPACT: In settings with rare outcomes and low-dimensional features, regularized regression may offer a practical balance between performance and interpretability.
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.