ArticleScientific reports2024
Predictive modeling for breast cancer classification in the context of Bangladeshi patients by use of machine learning approach with explainable AI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transformer based breast cancer classification from histopathological images using sequential residual recurrent multiscale attention network.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- Different BI-RADS breast cancer diagnosis using MobileNetV1 and vision transformer based on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A unified multi modal transformer framework for breast cancer recurrence prediction and survival analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Explainability in AI-enabled medical neurotechnology: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- An Automated Hybrid Deep Learning-based Model for Breast Cancer Detection using Mammographic ImagesCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Diagnostics of diabetic retinopathy based on fundus photos using machine learning methods with advanced feature engineering algorithms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of parametric survival models and machine learning methods in breast cancer prognosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Detection of breast cancer using machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning analysis of survival outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, and radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Explainable and uncertainty-aware ensemble framework with causal analysis for breast cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A precise machine learning model: Detecting cervical cancer using feature selection and explainable AI.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed 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%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.