ML: Early Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide, often characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of breast cells, leading to the formation of lumps or tumors that can be detected through medical imaging such as X-rays. Distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors presen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current problems in cancer. Case reports Jg. 13; S. 100278
Hauptverfasser: Malakouti, Seyed Matin, Menhaj, Mohammad Bagher, Suratgar, Amir Abolfazl
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Elsevier Inc 01.03.2024
Elsevier
Schlagworte:
Breast cancer
Grid search
Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Medicine
Machine learning methods
Women worldwide
Grid search
Women worldwide
Breast cancer
Machine learning methods
machine learning methods
women worldwide
Grid Search
ISSN:2666-6219, 2666-6219
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide, often characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of breast cells, leading to the formation of lumps or tumors that can be detected through medical imaging such as X-rays. Distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors presents a significant challenge in the diagnosis of breast cancer. In this study, machine learning methods, including Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, Ada Boost, Random Forest, and Gaussian NB with Grid Search, were employed to differentiate between healthy individuals and those with malignancies. The results revealed that the Random Forest algorithm exhibited the highest performance in predicting breast cancer, accurately identifying 99 % of both healthy and affected individuals. Additionally, both Gradient Boosting and Ada Boost demonstrated a similar level of accuracy, correctly distinguishing 98 % of healthy and affected individuals. Conversely, Gaussian NB performed the least effectively, with an accuracy of 91 % in differentiating between healthy and affected individuals, highlighting its comparatively lower predictive capability for breast cancer.
ISSN:2666-6219
2666-6219
DOI:10.1016/j.cpccr.2024.100278