A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Breast Cancer Detection and Identification of Key Predictive Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer, a disease with numerous subtypes, poses a deadly threat to human life, with the potential for successful clinical treatment heavily reliant on early detection and appropriate treatment planning.The classification of cancer patients into either low or high-risk subgroups is critical.Consequently, various research teams spanning the biomedical and bioinformatics fields have explored the use of Machine Learning (ML) technology in this crucial domain.The impressive capability of ML algorithms to discern significant features in complex datasets underscores their value.In the current study, we propose a framework to detect breast cancer (through benign and malignant categorization) utilizing advanced ML techniques with high accuracy.This framework deploys the Wisconsin Breast Cancer (Diagnostic) dataset.Five supervised ML techniques, namely Decision Tree, Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), are trained for classification purposes.Out of 569 samples, 70% are allocated for training while the other 30% for testing.A comprehensive evaluation of ML techniques is performed using an array of metrics: precision, recall, specificity, F1 score, classification accuracy, ROC Curve, training time, and feature utilization.Additionally, feature importance is computed for each classifier.The results reveal that the SVM has the maximum accuracy as 97.66%, with an F1-score of 0.98 for benign and 0.97 for malignant classifications.Conversely, the decision tree registers the minimum performance (94.55%) with an F1-score of 0.95 for benign and 0.91 for malignant classes.Accuracy scores for RF, XGBoost, and ANN stand at 95.32%, 95.91%, and 97.07%, with corresponding F1-scores of 0.96, 0.97, and 0.98 for benign and 0.94, 0.95, and 0.96 for malignant respectively.Interestingly, RF and XGBoost exhibited near-equivalent similarly with respect of accuracy measurements.In the context of the area over the ROC curve, SVM outperformed the other ML classifiers and also reported the shortest training time.Conversely, the ANN reported the longest training time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".