ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting cancer risk using machine learning on lifestyle and genetic data.
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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Design of Plant-Protein Meat Analogues: Integrating Nutrition, Functionality, and Fibrillation-Based Texturization.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Enhancing cancer risk awareness and screening management through artificial intelligence: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, where early detection significantly improves patient outcomes and reduces treatment burden. This study investigates the application of Machine Learning (ML) techniques to predict cancer risk based on a combination of genetic and lifestyle factors. A structured dataset of 1,200 patient records was used, comprising features such as age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity, genetic risk level, and personal history of cancer. A full end-to-end ML pipeline was implemented, encompassing data exploration, preprocessing, feature scaling, model training, and evaluation using stratified cross-validation and a separate test set. Nine supervised learning algorithms were evaluated and compared, including Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), and several ensemble methods. Among these, Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) achieved the highest predictive performance, with a test accuracy of 98.75% and an F1-score of 0.9820, outperforming both traditional and other advanced models. Feature importance analysis confirmed the strong influence of cancer history, genetic risk, and smoking status on prediction outcomes. The findings highlight the effectiveness of boosting-based ensemble models in capturing complex interactions within health data and support their potential use in personalized cancer risk assessment. This research underscores the value of integrating genetic and modifiable lifestyle variables into predictive modeling to enhance early detection and preventive healthcare strategies.
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.