ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning analysis of survival outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, and radiotherapy.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- M.globosa promotes lung cancer progression and M2 macrophage polarization through oxidative phosphorylation.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- A zeolite imidazolate (ZIF-8)-based system for synergistic photodynamic/starvation therapy of breast cancer.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2025Article
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
Breast cancer continues to be a leading cause of death among women in the world. The prediction of survival outcomes based on treatment modalities, i.e., chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, and radiation therapy is an essential step towards personalization in treatment planning. However, Machine Learning (ML) models may improve these predictions by investigating intricate relationships between clinical variables and survival. This study investigates the performance of several ML models to predict survival rate in patients undergoing diverse breast cancer treatments i.e., chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery and radiation using multiple clinical parameters. The dataset consisted of 5000 samples and turned into downloaded from Kaggle. The models assessed blanketed Support Vector Machines (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, Random Forest, Gaussian Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XG boost), and Decision tree. Performance of the models was assessed using parameters such as Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-Score and Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC). SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values analysis was done to provide an explanation for the impact of a feature on model predictions using Waterfall and Beeswarm plots. Anticipated baseline (E(f(x))) were in comparison to the predictions (f(x)) for each therapy group. Performance of Gradient Boosting was shown to be the best with an Accuracy: 0.972, Precision: 0.973, Recall: 0.972, F1-Score: 0.973, and AUC-ROC Score: 0.997. Chemotherapy had a notably bad impact on survival, with an f(x) of -0.274 and an E(f(x)) of -0.025. Hormone therapy showed the maximum detrimental effect on survival, with an f(x) of -0.408. Surgical operation had an extraordinarily impartial impact (f(x) = -0.041), even as radiation therapy positively impacted survival results with an f(x) of 0.22. Gradient Boosting was the most predictive algorithm for breast cancer survival outcomes. This SHAP-primarily based analysis provides a complete knowledge of ways one-of-a-kind treatments have an effect on survival predictions in breast cancer patients. Radiation therapy indicates the most tremendous effect on survival, whilst hormone therapy reveals the maximum poor effect. Future studies need to explore personalized treatment strategies that comprise these insights to enhance patient effects.
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.