Exploration of Digital Health Technologies

Table 2. Performance comparison of ML models on the internal hold-out test set (n = 60; 40 events, 20 non-events).

Model	Accuracy	Bal. Acc.	F1-score	Kappa	MCC	NPV (95% CI)	PPV (95% CI)	PR-AUC (95% CI)	ROC-AUC (95% CI)	Sensitivity	Specificity (95% CI)
LR	0.87	0.85	0.90	0.70	0.70	0.80 (0.61–0.92)	0.90 (0.86–0.97)	0.94 (0.89–0.98)	0.91 (0.84–0.96)	0.90	0.80 (0.62–0.94)
LGBM	0.87	0.86	0.90	0.71	0.71	0.77	0.92	0.94	0.89 (0.80–0.95)	0.875	0.85
RF	0.83	0.83	0.87	0.63	0.64	0.73	0.89	0.92	0.88 (0.77–0.94)	0.85	0.80
SVM	0.77	0.81	0.79	0.54	0.59	0.59	0.96	0.96	0.90 (0.82–0.97)	0.675	0.95
MLP	0.82	0.81	0.86	0.60	0.61	0.70	0.89	0.97 (0.90–0.99)	0.93 (0.86–0.97)	0.825	0.80
NB	0.80	0.79	0.85	0.56	0.56	0.68	0.87	0.93	0.88 (0.78–0.95)	0.825	0.75

Return to article view

Bal. Acc.: balanced accuracy; CI: confidence interval (bootstrap, 1,000 resamples); LR: logistic regression; LGBM: light gradient boosting machine; MCC: Matthews correlation coefficient; MLP: multilayer perceptron; NB: Naïve Bayes; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; RF: random forest; SVM: support vector machine. CIs are those obtained in the primary analysis. Where point estimates were recomputed, the original bootstrap intervals are retained.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to appreciate all the clinicians who helped to collect the data in the various hospitals. During the preparation of this work, we used ChatGPT for polishing the language of some sections. After using it, we thoroughly reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Author contributions

TMG and CSB: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. ZB: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis. AKI, SE, NK, BTB, SFO: Writing—review & editing. JZ: Supervision, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study involved a secondary analysis of fully anonymized data from an investigation that had received ethical approval from Dar-es-Salaam City in Tanzania (document number: 10/VOL.XXI/213B) and Zanzibar Health Research Ethics Committee (ZAHREC) from Zanzibar city in Tanzania (document number: ZAHREC/05/ST/OCT/2023/180). No direct patient contact occurred and all data were de-identified; no additional ethical approval or informed consent was required. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable ethical guidelines and regulations.

Consent to participate

Not required as no direct patient contact occurred and all data were de-identified. This study involved a secondary analysis of fully anonymized data from an investigation that had received ethical approval.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed in this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. [DOI] [PubMed]

WHO. Cancer United Republic of Tanzania 2020 country profile [Internet]. WHO; c2026 [cited 2020 Jan 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/cancer-tza-2020

Anderson BO, Ilbawi AM, Fidarova E, Weiderpass E, Stevens L, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. The Global Breast Cancer Initiative: a strategic collaboration to strengthen health care for noncommunicable diseases. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:578–81. [DOI]

Jedy-Agba E, McCormack V, Adebamowo C, Dos-Santos-Silva I. Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4:e923–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Pace LE, Shulman LN. Breast Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities to Reduce Mortality. Oncologist. 2016;21:739–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kantelhardt EJ, Muluken G, Sefonias G, Wondimu A, Gebert HC, Unverzagt S, et al. A Review on Breast Cancer Care in Africa. Breast Care (Basel). 2015;10:364–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Mayor S. Service review: improving breast cancer care in Tanzania. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:430. [DOI] [PubMed]

Galukande M, Wabinga H, Mirembe F. Breast cancer survival experiences at a tertiary hospital in sub-Saharan Africa: a cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:220. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kourou K, Exarchos TP, Exarchos KP, Karamouzis MV, Fotiadis DI. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014;13:8–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

Deo RC. Machine Learning in Medicine. Circulation. 2015;132:1920–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

11.

Zeng L, Liu L, Chen D, Lu H, Xue Y, Bi H, et al. The innovative model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict recurrence risk of patients with postoperative breast cancer. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1117420. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Wu X, Ye Y, Barcenas CH, Chow WH, Meng QH, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Personalized Prognostic Prediction Models for Breast Cancer Recurrence and Survival Incorporating Multidimensional Data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:djw314. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB, Giger ML, Birkbak NJ, Mehrtash A, et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:127–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Duggan C, Trapani D, Ilbawi AM, Fidarova E, Laversanne M, Curigliano G, et al. National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1632–42. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Iddi AK, Zhang S, Mbambara B, Jubilate A, Basinda MSA, Malugulu PM, et al. Risk Prediction Model and Early Recommendation for Postoperative Recurrence of Breast Cancer Patients in Tanzania. OALib. 2025;12:1–22. [DOI]

16.

Freijeiro-González L, Febrero-Bande M, González-Manteiga W. A Critical Review of LASSO and Its Derivatives for Variable Selection Under Dependence Among Covariates. Int Stat Rev. 2022;90:118–45. [DOI]

17.

Rahman F, Hossain S, Tiang JJ, Nahid AA. Diabetes Prediction Using Feature Selection Algorithms and Boosting-Based Machine Learning Classifiers. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025;15:2622. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:55–63. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Kursa MB, Jankowski A, Rudnicki WR. Boruta – A System for Feature Selection. Fundam Inform. 2010;101:271–85.

20.

Jiang C, Xiu Y, Qiao K, Yu X, Zhang S, Huang Y. Prediction of lymph node metastasis in patients with breast invasive micropapillary carcinoma based on machine learning and SHapley Additive exPlanations framework. Front Oncol. 2022;12:981059. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Peng Y, Zhang C, Zhou B. A cross-sectional study comparing machine learning and logistic regression techniques for predicting osteoporosis in a group at high risk of cardiovascular disease among old adults. BMC Geriatr. 2025;25:209. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

22.

Ma L, Zhang B, Wu X, Li X, Song D, Jiang Z, et al. Comparison of the predictive performance of machine learning and conventional logistic regression models for poor discharge outcomes in patients with Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A retrospective cohort study. Neurosurg Rev. 2026;49:174. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Hong S, Lu B, Wang S, Jiang Y. Comparison of logistic regression and machine learning methods for predicting depression risks among disabled elderly individuals: results from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. BMC Psychiatry. 2025;25:128. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

24.

Labory J, Njomgue-Fotso E, Bottini S. Benchmarking feature selection and feature extraction methods to improve the performances of machine-learning algorithms for patient classification using metabolomics biomedical data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:1274–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

25.

Koroltchouk V, Stanley K, Stjernswärd J. The control of breast cancer. A World Health Organization perspective. Cancer. 1990;65:2803–10. [DOI] [PubMed]