ArticleScientific reports2025
Explainable machine learning to compare the overall survival status between patients receiving mastectomy and breast conserving surgeries.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- M.globosa promotes lung cancer progression and M2 macrophage polarization through oxidative phosphorylation.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Breast cancer survival prediction using machine learning and multimodal data for personalized care plan.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- BrCaM an artificial intelligence model for surgical decision making in breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Immunohistochemical predictors of local recurrence in breast carcinoma: development and sensitivity validation of an IHC-based risk score.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most prevalent malignancy among women is breast cancer; hence, treatment approaches are needed in consideration of tumor characteristics and disease stage but also patient preference. Two surgical options, Mastectomy and Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS), share the same survival outcomes, clinical or molecular factors; and explainable Machine Learning (ML) techniques like SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) offer further insights. To compare the overall survival status of breast cancer patients undergoing Mastectomy versus BCS using ML models and SHAP values, identifying key predictors for survival. This study used the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) dataset, which contains 2509 patients with clinical and molecular features. The preprocessing steps included imputation of missing values, class balancing using Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), and feature selection. Gradient Boosting was identified as the best model, considering metrics such as accuracy, precision, and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC-AUC). SHAP values were used for feature importance, detailing the contribution of predictors to survival outcomes in both surgical groups. Gradient Boosting achieved a training accuracy of 95.4% and test accuracy of 86.4% for Mastectomy, and 94.6% and 82.8% respectively for BCS. Strong predictors included Relapse Free Status, Nottingham Prognostic Index and Age at Diagnosis. SHAP analysis indicated that the Relapse Free Status was an important predictor across both surgeries though there were specific influences of Age and Menopausal State. Younger patients benefited more with BCS while older ones faced higher risks from Mastectomy. The performance for BCS was significantly higher-3.73 than the performance of Mastectomy-1.21. The SHAP-driven insights pointed toward a more personalized approach to treatment, depending on both clinical and molecular predictors. This will justify tailored surgical and adjuvant therapies in achieving optimized survival.
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.