Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42726895›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Explainable machine learning for breast cancer prediction in resource-constrained settings: A multi-algorithmic framework integrating shap-based transparency with clinical decision support.

Oluwaseun Adebayo Bamodu, Sumaiya Nezam, Chen-Chih Chung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Oluwaseun Adebayo BamoduBuilding Research and Implementation to Drive Growth and Equity in Africa (BRIDGEAfrica), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8229-0408
Sumaiya NezamDepartment of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6259-5167
Chen-Chih ChungDepartment of Neurology, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6743-6667

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed malignancy among women globally, with disproportionately higher mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where diagnostic delays and limited specialist pathology capacity are widespread. While machine learning (ML) approaches achieve strong predictive performance for cancer classification, algorithmic opacity and absence of interpretability frameworks tailored to resource-constrained environments have impeded clinical adoption. This study bridges the translational gap between predictive accuracy and clinical utility by developing an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) framework specifically designed for breast cancer diagnosis in underserved healthcare settings. Using the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Diagnostic Dataset (569 fine-needle aspirate cytological specimens with 30 nuclear morphometric features), we systematically benchmarked eight supervised classification algorithms: Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting, Decision Tree, and K-Nearest Neighbors, using stratified 10-fold cross-validation and an independent hold-out test set (80:20 split). Performance was evaluated across discriminative and probabilistic metrics, including AUC-ROC, F1-score, Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and Brier score, and interpretability was operationalized through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis with global feature importance, cross-model consensus ranking, and individual-level dependence characterization. All ensemble and regularized models achieved test-set AUCs above 0.98, with XGBoost and SVM attaining the highest AUC of 0.996, and Logistic Regression the highest accuracy (98.25%) and MCC (0.962). SHAP analysis consistently identified worst perimeter, worst concave points, and worst area as the dominant predictors, with strong concordance across gradient-boosted models (pairwise Spearman rho: XGBoost-LightGBM 0.86, XGBoost-Random Forest 0.82, Random Forest-LightGBM 0.67). Logistic Regression also demonstrated superior probability calibration, a critical requirement for clinical risk stratification. Collectively, these findings deliver a reproducible, transparent framework whose SHAP-derived signatures align with established cytopathological principles, supporting responsible integration of interpretable ML into resource-limited diagnostic workflows and providing a template for equitable AI deployment in global oncology.

Identifiers

PMID42726895
PMCPMC13568489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.