Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

26 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Diagnostic Accuracy of Machine Learning Models on Mammography in Breast Cancer Classification: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: In this meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning models on digital mammograms and tomosynthesis in breast cancer classification and to assess the factors affecting its diagnostic accuracy. We searched for related studies in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase. The studies were screened in two stages to exclude the unrelated studies and duplicates. Finally, 36 studies containing 68 machine learning models were included in this meta-analysis. The area under the curve (AUC), hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) curve, pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity were estimated using a bivariate Reitsma model. Overall AUC, pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87), respectively. Additionally, the three significant covariates identified in this study were country (p = 0.003), source (p = 0.002) and classifier (p = 0.016). The type of data covariate was not statistically significant (p = 0.121). Additionally, Deeks' linear regression test indicated that there exists a publication bias in the included studies (p = 0.002). Thus, the results should be interpreted with caution.

SUBMITTER: Hanis TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9320089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Diagnostic Accuracy of Machine-Learning Models on Predicting Chemo-Brain in Breast Cancer Survivors Previously Treated with Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

Project description:We performed a meta-analysis of chemo-brain diagnostic, pooling sensitivities, and specificities in order to assess the accuracy of a machine-learning (ML) algorithm in breast cancer survivors previously treated with chemotherapy. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles before 30 September 2022. We identified three eligible studies from which we extracted seven ML algorithms. For our data, the χ2 tests demonstrated the homogeneity of the sensitivity’s models (χ2 = 7.6987, df = 6, p-value = 0.261) and the specificities of the ML models (χ2 = 3.0151, df = 6, p-value = 0.807). The pooled area under the curve (AUC) for the overall ML models in this study was 0.914 (95%CI: 0.891–0.939) and partial AUC (restricted to observed false positive rates and normalized) was 0.844 (95%CI: 0.80–0.889). Additionally, the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity values were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.75–0.86) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.86), respectively. From all included ML models, support vector machine demonstrated the best test performance. ML models represent a promising, reliable modality for chemo-brain prediction in breast cancer survivors previously treated with chemotherapy, demonstrating high accuracy.

| S-EPMC9779296 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic Accuracy of Machine Learning Models to Identify Congenital Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Background: With the dearth of trained care providers to diagnose congenital heart disease (CHD) and a surge in machine learning (ML) models, this review aims to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of such models for detecting CHD. Methods: A comprehensive literature search in the PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. Studies that reported the diagnostic ability of ML for the detection of CHD compared to the reference standard were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The sensitivity and specificity results from the studies were used to generate the hierarchical Summary ROC (HSROC) curve. Results: We included 16 studies (1217 participants) that used ML algorithm to diagnose CHD. Neural networks were used in seven studies with overall sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI 85.2-94.5%) and specificity was 92.7% (95% CI 86.4-96.2%). Other ML models included ensemble methods, deep learning and clustering techniques but did not have sufficient number of studies for a meta-analysis. Majority (n=11, 69%) of studies had a high risk of patient selection bias, unclear bias on index test (n=9, 56%) and flow and timing (n=12, 75%) while low risk of bias was reported for the reference standard (n=10, 62%). Conclusion: ML models such as neural networks have the potential to diagnose CHD accurately without the need for trained personnel. The heterogeneity of the diagnostic modalities used to train these models and the heterogeneity of the CHD diagnoses included between the studies is a major limitation.

| S-EPMC8297386 | biostudies-literature

Molecular Classification Models for Triple Negative Breast Cancer Subtype Using Machine Learning.

Project description:Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks well-defined molecular targets and is highly heterogenous, making treatment challenging. Using gene expression analysis, TNBC has been classified into four different subtypes: basal-like immune-activated (BLIA), basal-like immune-suppressed (BLIS), mesenchymal (MES), and luminal androgen receptor (LAR). However, there is currently no standardized method for classifying TNBC subtypes. We attempted to define a gene signature for each subtype, and to develop a classification method based on machine learning (ML) for TNBC subtyping. In these experiments, gene expression microarray data for TNBC patients were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Differentially expressed genes unique to 198 known TNBC cases were identified and selected as a training gene set to train in seven different classification models. We produced a training set consisting of 719 DEGs selected from uniquely expressed genes of all four subtypes. The highest average accuracy of classification of the BLIA, BLIS, MES, and LAR subtypes was achieved by the SVM algorithm (accuracy 95-98.8%; AUC 0.99-1.00). For model validation, we used 334 samples of unknown TNBC subtypes, of which 97 (29.04%), 73 (21.86%), 39 (11.68%) and 59 (17.66%) were predicted to be BLIA, BLIS, MES, and LAR, respectively. However, 66 TNBC samples (19.76%) could not be assigned to any subtype. These samples contained only three upregulated genes (EN1, PROM1, and CCL2). Each TNBC subtype had a unique gene expression pattern, which was confirmed by identification of DEGs and pathway analysis. These results indicated that our training gene set was suitable for development of classification models, and that the SVM algorithm could classify TNBC into four unique subtypes. Accurate and consistent classification of the TNBC subtypes is essential for personalized treatment and prognosis of TNBC.

| S-EPMC8472680 | biostudies-literature

Radiomics and Machine Learning with Multiparametric Breast MRI for Improved Diagnostic Accuracy in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Project description:The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to evaluate radiomics analysis coupled with machine learning (ML) of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) radiomics models separately and combined as multiparametric MRI for improved breast cancer detection. Consecutive patients (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, January 2018-March 2020; Medical University Vienna, from January 2011-August 2014) with a suspicious enhancing breast tumor on breast MRI categorized as BI-RADS 4 and who subsequently underwent image-guided biopsy were included. In 93 patients (mean age: 49 years ± 12 years; 100% women), there were 104 lesions (mean size: 22.8 mm; range: 7-99 mm), 46 malignant and 58 benign. Radiomics features were calculated. Subsequently, the five most significant features were fitted into multivariable modeling to produce a robust ML model for discriminating between benign and malignant lesions. A medium Gaussian support vector machine (SVM) model with five-fold cross validation was developed for each modality. A model based on DWI-extracted features achieved an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88), whereas a model based on DCE-extracted features yielded an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.91). A multiparametric radiomics model combining DCE- and DWI-extracted features showed the best AUC (0.85; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92) and diagnostic accuracy (81.7%; 95% CI: 73.0-88.6). In conclusion, radiomics analysis coupled with ML of multiparametric MRI allows an improved evaluation of suspicious enhancing breast tumors recommended for biopsy on clinical breast MRI, facilitating accurate breast cancer diagnosis while reducing unnecessary benign breast biopsies.

| S-EPMC8223779 | biostudies-literature

Breast Cancer Type Classification Using Machine Learning.

Project description:Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease defined by molecular types and subtypes. Advances in genomic research have enabled use of precision medicine in clinical management of breast cancer. A critical unmet medical need is distinguishing triple negative breast cancer, the most aggressive and lethal form of breast cancer, from non-triple negative breast cancer. Here we propose use of a machine learning (ML) approach for classification of triple negative breast cancer and non-triple negative breast cancer patients using gene expression data. We performed analysis of RNA-Sequence data from 110 triple negative and 992 non-triple negative breast cancer tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas to select the features (genes) used in the development and validation of the classification models. We evaluated four different classification models including Support Vector Machines, K-nearest neighbor, Naïve Bayes and Decision tree using features selected at different threshold levels to train the models for classifying the two types of breast cancer. For performance evaluation and validation, the proposed methods were applied to independent gene expression datasets. Among the four ML algorithms evaluated, the Support Vector Machine algorithm was able to classify breast cancer more accurately into triple negative and non-triple negative breast cancer and had less misclassification errors than the other three algorithms evaluated. The prediction results show that ML algorithms are efficient and can be used for classification of breast cancer into triple negative and non-triple negative breast cancer types.

| S-EPMC7909418 | biostudies-literature

Classification and diagnostic prediction of breast cancer metastasis on clinical data using machine learning algorithms.

Project description:Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) is one of the primary causes of cancer-related deaths in women. Despite several limitations, histopathological information about the malignancy is used for the classification of cancer. The objective of our study is to develop a non-invasive breast cancer classification system for the diagnosis of cancer metastases. The anaconda-Jupyter notebook is used to develop various python programming modules for text mining, data processing, and Machine Learning (ML) methods. Utilizing classification model cross-validation criteria, including accuracy, AUC, and ROC, the prediction performance of the ML models is assessed. Welch Unpaired t-test was used to ascertain the statistical significance of the datasets. Text mining framework from the Electronic Medical Records (EMR) made it easier to separate the blood profile data and identify MBC patients. Monocytes revealed a noticeable mean difference between MBC patients as compared to healthy individuals. The accuracy of ML models was dramatically improved by removing outliers from the blood profile data. A Decision Tree (DT) classifier displayed an accuracy of 83% with an AUC of 0.87. Next, we deployed DT classifiers using Flask to create a web application for robust diagnosis of MBC patients. Taken together, we conclude that ML models based on blood profile data may assist physicians in selecting intensive-care MBC patients to enhance the overall survival outcome.

| S-EPMC9831019 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%-91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%-93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%-88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.

| S-EPMC7375655 | biostudies-literature

Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.

Project description:BackgroundDeep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening.MethodsWe collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.ResultsCancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P < .001).ConclusionsA deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.

| S-EPMC9552206 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in women attending population-based breast cancer screenings. We performed a systematic review and included controlled studies comparing DBT with digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Search strategies were applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. With moderate quality of evidence, in 1,000 screens, DBT plus digital mammography increased the overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 3 and 2 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.79, respectively). DBT plus synthetic mammography increased both overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 2 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54 and RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55, respectively). DBT did not improve recall, false positive and false negative rates. However due to heterogeneity the quality of evidence was low. For women attending population-based breast cancer screenings, DBT increases rates of overall and invasive breast cancer. There is no evidence with high or moderate quality showing that DBT compared with digital mammography decreases recall rates, as well as false positive and false negative rates.

| S-EPMC7224282 | biostudies-literature

Prediction of Breast Cancer Estrogen Receptor Status using Machine Learning

Project description:Gene expression profiles were generated from 199 primary breast cancer patients. Samples 1-176 were used in another study, GEO Series GSE22820, and form the training data set in this study. Sample numbers 200-222 form a validation set. This data is used to model a machine learning classifier for Estrogen Receptor Status. RNA was isolated from 199 primary breast cancer patients. A machine learning classifier was built to predict ER status using only three gene features.

2013-01-01 | E-GEOD-29210 | biostudies-arrayexpress

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data