ReviewCancers2026
Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting 5-Year Breast Cancer Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment, accurately predicting 5-year survival remains challenging because of disease heterogeneity. This study systematically evaluated the performance of machine learning (ML) models for predicting 5-year breast cancer survival and synthesised their overall discriminative performance.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2010-2024) identified studies developing ML models for 5-year survival prediction. Study quality was assessed using PROBAST. Logit-transformed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) estimates were quantitatively synthesised using a random-effects meta-analysis with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I
resultsFifteen studies were included. A wide range of ML models, including Random Forest, Random Survival Forest, and gradient boosting methods, was evaluated. The pooled analysis demonstrated good discriminative performance, with an overall AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies. Ensemble-based models generally showed consistent performance. Publication bias was detected, and several studies exhibited moderate-to-high risk of bias.
conclusionsML models show strong potential for predicting 5-year breast cancer survival and may support early risk stratification and clinical decision-making. However, greater methodological standardisation, rigorous external validation, and improved reporting are required before widespread clinical implementation.
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.