MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393012000 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1343627

Breast cancer risk prediction using machine learning: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4393012000 on OpenAlexaff
Sadam Hussain, Mansoor Ali, Usman Naseem, Fahimeh Nezhadmoghadam, Munsif Ali Jatoi, T. Aaron Gulliver, José G. Tamez‐Peña

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerArtificial intelligenceMammographyMachine learningMedicineBreast imagingRadiomicsPredictive modellingRisk assessmentComputer scienceBenchmarkingPersonalized medicinePrecision medicineMedical physicsCancerBioinformaticsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related fatalities among women worldwide. Conventional screening and risk prediction models primarily rely on demographic and patient clinical history to devise policies and estimate likelihood. However, recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, particularly deep learning (DL), have shown promise in the development of personalized risk models. These models leverage individual patient information obtained from medical imaging and associated reports. In this systematic review, we thoroughly investigated the existing literature on the application of DL to digital mammography, radiomics, genomics, and clinical information for breast cancer risk assessment. We critically analyzed these studies and discussed their findings, highlighting the promising prospects of DL techniques for breast cancer risk prediction. Additionally, we explored ongoing research initiatives and potential future applications of AI-driven approaches to further improve breast cancer risk prediction, thereby facilitating more effective screening and personalized risk management strategies. Objective and methods: This study presents a comprehensive overview of imaging and non-imaging features used in breast cancer risk prediction using traditional and AI models. The features reviewed in this study included imaging, radiomics, genomics, and clinical features. Furthermore, this survey systematically presented DL methods developed for breast cancer risk prediction, aiming to be useful for both beginners and advanced-level researchers. Results: A total of 600 articles were identified, 20 of which met the set criteria and were selected. Parallel benchmarking of DL models, along with natural language processing (NLP) applied to imaging and non-imaging features, could allow clinicians and researchers to gain greater awareness as they consider the clinical deployment or development of new models. This review provides a comprehensive guide for understanding the current status of breast cancer risk assessment using AI. Conclusion: This study offers investigators a different perspective on the use of AI for breast cancer risk prediction, incorporating numerous imaging and non-imaging features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207