Transforming Breast Cancer Prediction: Advanced Machine Learning Models for Accurate Prediction and Personalized Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide, underscoring the importance of early detection and accurate prognostication. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising approach, offering powerful tools for analyzing complex datasets in breast cancer prediction and diagnosis. Objective: This study evaluates the predictive performance of diverse ML algorithms for breast cancer classification using publicly available datasets, focusing on accuracy, interpretability, and generalizability. Methods: The dataset included clinical and demographic variables such as age, menopausal status, tumor size, and lymph node involvement. Data preprocessing addressed missing values and class imbalance, with the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) applied to improve sensitivity for the minority class. Feature engineering involved interaction terms and scaling of numerical variables. Multiple ML models—Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Neural Networks—were trained and evaluated. Performance was measured using sensitivity, F1-score, and AUC-ROC. Model interpretability was enhanced with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: Random Forest achieved the best performance with an AUC-ROC of 0.9751, followed by Gradient Boosting (0.9242) and Neural Networks (0.9254). Logistic Regression and SVM yielded comparable results (0.9005 and 0.9344). Ensemble models showed higher accuracy and generalizability, particularly on external validation. Tumor size and lymph node involvement emerged as key predictors. SMOTE improved sensitivity across models. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential of ML in breast cancer prediction, emphasizing the effectiveness of ensemble methods and interpretability tools. Future work should focus on integrating ML into clinical practice for earlier detection and personalized treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".