Artificial intelligence in breast cancer survival prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer (BC), as a leading cause of cancer mortality in women, demands robust prediction models for early diagnosis and personalized treatment. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms offer promising solutions for automated survival prediction, driving this study's systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Three online databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus) were comprehensively searched (January 2016-August 2023) using key terms ("Breast Cancer", "Survival Prediction", and "Machine Learning") and their synonyms. Original articles applying ML algorithms for BC survival prediction using clinical data were included. The quality of studies was assessed via the Qiao Quality Assessment tool. Results: Amongst 140 identified articles, 32 met the eligibility criteria. Analyzed ML methods achieved a mean validation accuracy of 89.73%. Hybrid models, combining traditional and modern ML techniques, were mostly considered to predict survival rates (40.62%). Supervised learning was the dominant ML paradigm (75%). Common ML methodologies included pre-processing, feature extraction, dimensionality reduction, and classification. Deep Learning (DL), particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), emerged as the preferred modern algorithm within these methodologies. Notably, 81.25% of studies relied on internal validation, primarily using K-fold cross-validation and train/test split strategies. Conclusion: The findings underscore the significant potential of AI-based algorithms in enhancing the accuracy of BC survival predictions. However, to ensure the robustness and generalizability of these predictive models, future research should emphasize the importance of rigorous external validation. Such endeavors will not only validate the efficacy of these models across diverse populations but also pave the way for their integration into clinical practice, ultimately contributing to personalized patient care and improved survival outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024513350.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".