Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42136924›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting invasive breast cancer using 26 routine clinical examination indicators.

Lijuan Pan, Wenjing Deng, Ziwei Zhao, Yulong Liu, Xuelian Peng, Chunyan Yang, Baoru Han, Shan Shi, Jin Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Lijuan PanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Wenjing DengCollege of Artificial Intelligence Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Ziwei ZhaoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Second People's Hospital of Dazu District, Chongqing, China.
Yulong LiuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xuelian PengDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Chunyan YangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Baoru HanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Shan ShiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jin LiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4243-8923

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Invasive breast cancer (IBC) is the most prevalent malignant tumor in women globally and a leading cause of female mortality, with increasing incidence and death rates. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) have shown significant potential in IBC prediction. This study aimed to assess different ML strategies to develop an optimal model for predicting IBC based on routine clinical examination indicators. Methods: We collected routine blood parameters, serum tumor marker indicators, and age data from 1,175 IBC patients at the Affiliated Dazu's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. From these datasets, we identified 26 key routine clinical examination indicators, including 23 blood routine parameters, 2 tumor marker indicators, and age. We constructed an IBC prediction model using 10 ML algorithms. The performance of these models was evaluated using the test set and internal validation set, with evaluation metrics including accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and area under the curve (AUC). Ultimately, an optimal web tool for predicting IBC was developed based on these models. Results: In the internal testing cohort, we assessed ten ML models. The XGBoost-based web tools emerged as the optimal choice, achieving an AUC exceeding 0.970 on both the test set and internal validation cohorts. Interpretability analysis using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) revealed that basophils, platelet distribution width (PDW), and age features ranked highly in the feature importance of XGBoost models for IBC prediction, highlighting the importance of incorporating routinely collected clinical data into IBC prediction models. Conclusions: The ML-based web tool developed using 26 routine clinical examination indicators has shown considerable promise in predicting IBC. Among the models, the XGBoost algorithm exhibited the highest performance, becoming a reliable predictive tool that can enhance clinical decision-making and improve the accuracy of IBC diagnoses.

Indexed as

invasive breast cancermachine learningroutine blood parametersserum tumor marker indicatorsshapley additive explanations

Identifiers

PMID42136924
PMCPMC13167334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.