ArticleDigital health
Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting invasive breast cancer using 26 routine clinical examination indicators.
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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.