Predictive modeling for breast cancer classification in the context of Bangladeshi patients by use of machine learning approach with explainable AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer has rapidly increased in prevalence in recent years, making it one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Among all cancers, it is by far the most common. Diagnosing this illness manually requires significant time and expertise. Since detecting breast cancer is a time-consuming process, preventing its further spread can be aided by creating machine-based forecasts. Machine learning and Explainable AI are crucial in classification as they not only provide accurate predictions but also offer insights into how the model arrives at its decisions, aiding in the understanding and trustworthiness of the classification results. In this study, we evaluate and compare the classification accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores of five different machine learning methods using a primary dataset (500 patients from Dhaka Medical College Hospital). Five different supervised machine learning techniques, including decision tree, random forest, logistic regression, naive bayes, and XGBoost, have been used to achieve optimal results on our dataset. Additionally, this study applied SHAP analysis to the XGBoost model to interpret the model's predictions and understand the impact of each feature on the model's output. We compared the accuracy with which several algorithms classified the data, as well as contrasted with other literature in this field. After final evaluation, this study found that XGBoost achieved the best model accuracy, which is 97%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".