Key result
Machine learning model combining routine blood biomarkers discriminates breast cancer risk with 0.72 AUC.
Why the study?
In resource-limited settings and low- and middle-income countries, access to breast cancer screening programs and advanced risk assessment tools remains limited, and scalable strategies leveraging routinely collected data are underexplored.
Does a machine learning model combining routine blood-based biomarkers predict breast cancer risk in women aged 40-70 years?
Cross-Sectional (n=236)
No
Does a machine learning model combining routine blood-based biomarkers predict breast cancer risk in women aged 40-70 years?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.75)
A machine learning model using routine blood-based biomarkers showed potential as a low-cost pre-screening tool for breast cancer risk stratification in resource-limited settings.
Hypothesis-generating for biomarker integration in breast cancer risk models; should not alter current clinical risk stratification practices.
e12557 Background: Early breast cancer diagnosis is essential for improving survival outcomes and optimizing healthcare resource utilization. However, in resource-limited settings and low- and middle-income countries, access to screening programs and advanced risk assessment tools remains limited, and scalable strategies leveraging routinely collected data are underexplored. We evaluated routine blood-based biomarkers, individually and in combination, using a machine learning (ML) approach to develop a low-cost, scalable breast cancer risk assessment tool. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 236 women aged 40–70 years evaluated at Barretos Cancer Hospital between January 2024 and January 2025. Participants comprised newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (n = 125) and women undergoing screening with benign imaging findings (BI-RADS 1–2; n = 111). Routine laboratory markers included complete blood count, metabolic and inflammatory markers, thyroid and sex hormones, and tumor markers. Group comparisons were performed using Student’s t -test. A ridge regression model was trained using biomarkers significantly associated with breast cancer (p < 0.05). Results: The median age was 52 years. The majority of participants were White (51.7%), followed by Brown (37.1%) and Black (10.3%); 56.8% were postmenopausal. Several biomarkers were significantly higher in women with breast cancer (p < 0.05), including CA 15-3 (p = 0.018), CEA (p = 0.014), FSH (p = 0.016), T3 (p < 0.001) and Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration - MCHC (p = 0.014). No strong correlations were observed among selected variables (maximum correlation 0.19 between CEA and CA 15-3). Incorporation of biomarkers with p < 0.05 (CA 15-3, CEA, FSH, T3 and MCHC) into the ridge regression model yielded a mean AUC of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68–0.75) based on 1,000 iterations of stratified random subsampling, with sensitivity of 0.63 ± 0.08, specificity of 0.67 ± 0.08, accuracy of 0.65 ± 0.05, balanced accuracy of 0.65 ± 0.05, negative predictive value of 0.63 ± 0.05, and positive predictive value of 0.67 ± 0.06. Conclusions: An ML model combining routine blood-based biomarkers demonstrated potential as a low-cost pre-screening tool for breast cancer risk stratification. This approach may help prioritize diagnostic resources, particularly in resource-limited settings where access to advanced imaging and invasive diagnostic procedures is constrained. External validation in independent and diverse populations is required to confirm generalizability and support future clinical application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Breast cancer (n=236). Machine learning model using routine blood-based biomarkers vs. Women with benign imaging findings was evaluated on Model performance for breast cancer risk stratification (AUC) (AUC 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.75). A machine learning model combining routine blood-based biomarkers (CA 15-3, CEA, FSH, T3, and MCHC) discriminated breast cancer risk with a mean AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.75).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: