We have located links that may give you full text access.
Prediction and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Using Machine and Modern Deep Learning Models.
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention : APJCP 2024 March 1
UNLABELLED: Background &Objective: Carcinoma of the breast is one of the major issues causing death in women, especially in developing countries. Timely prediction, detection, diagnosis, and efficient therapies have become critical to reducing death rates. Increased use of artificial intelligence, machine, and deep learning techniques create more accurate and trustworthy models for predicting and detecting breast cancer. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of several machine and modern deep learning models for prediction and diagnosis of breast cancer.
METHODS: This research compares traditional machine learning classification methods to innovative techniques that use deep learning models. Established usual classification models such as k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Neural Network, CN2 rule inducer, Naive Bayes, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), and Tree, and deep learning models such as Neural Decision Forest and Multilayer Perceptron used. The investigation, which was carried out using the Orange and Python tools, evaluates their diagnostic effectiveness in breast cancer detection. The evaluation uses UCI's publicly accessible Wisconsin Diagnostic Data Set, enabling transparency and accessibility in the study approach.
RESULT: The mean radius ranges from 6.981 to 28.110, while the mean texture runs from 9.71 to 39.28 in malignant and benign cases. Gradient boosting and CN2 rule inducer classifiers outperform SVM in accuracy and sensitivity, whereas SVM has the lowest accuracy and sensitivity at 88%. The CN2 rule inducer classifier achieves the greatest ROC curve score for benign and malignant breast cancer datasets, with an AUC score of 0.98%. MLP displays distinguish positive and negative classes, with a higher AUC-ROC of 0.9959. with accuracy of 96.49%, precision of 96.57%, recall of 96.49%, and an F1-Score of 96.50%.
CONCLUSION: Among the most commonly used classifier models, CN2 rule and GB performed better than other models. However, MLP from deep learning produced the greatest overall performance.
METHODS: This research compares traditional machine learning classification methods to innovative techniques that use deep learning models. Established usual classification models such as k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Neural Network, CN2 rule inducer, Naive Bayes, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), and Tree, and deep learning models such as Neural Decision Forest and Multilayer Perceptron used. The investigation, which was carried out using the Orange and Python tools, evaluates their diagnostic effectiveness in breast cancer detection. The evaluation uses UCI's publicly accessible Wisconsin Diagnostic Data Set, enabling transparency and accessibility in the study approach.
RESULT: The mean radius ranges from 6.981 to 28.110, while the mean texture runs from 9.71 to 39.28 in malignant and benign cases. Gradient boosting and CN2 rule inducer classifiers outperform SVM in accuracy and sensitivity, whereas SVM has the lowest accuracy and sensitivity at 88%. The CN2 rule inducer classifier achieves the greatest ROC curve score for benign and malignant breast cancer datasets, with an AUC score of 0.98%. MLP displays distinguish positive and negative classes, with a higher AUC-ROC of 0.9959. with accuracy of 96.49%, precision of 96.57%, recall of 96.49%, and an F1-Score of 96.50%.
CONCLUSION: Among the most commonly used classifier models, CN2 rule and GB performed better than other models. However, MLP from deep learning produced the greatest overall performance.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Updated evidence on cardiovascular and renal effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and combination therapy with SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone: a narrative review and perspectives.Cardiovascular Diabetology 2024 November 15
Pharmacologic Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension Due to Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Are There More Arrows on Our Bow?Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 November 14
Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Urinary Tract Infections in Pediatrics and Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.JAMA Network Open 2024 November 4
Autoantibodies in neuromuscular disorders: a review of their utility in clinical practice.Frontiers in Neurology 2024
Methods for determining optimal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation: a scoping review.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 November 20
Cardiac Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Pathophysiology, Classification, and Hemodynamic Assessment.Curēus 2024 October
The Management of Interstitial Lung Disease in the ICU: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 November 6
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app