Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Breast Cancer Classification on a Curated Public Dataset
Evaluasi Komparatif Algoritma Machine Learning untuk Klasifikasi Kanker Payudara pada Curated Public Dataset
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25134/ilkom.v20i2.621Keywords:
data science, machine learning, classification, random forest, support vectorAbstract
Breast cancer classification using machine learning has been widely studied, particularly with the Breast Cancer Wisconsin Diagnostic dataset. Therefore, the main issue is not merely to report high accuracy, but to present a reproducible and clinically cautious comparative evaluation that prioritizes malignant-case performance, prevents data leakage, reports model configurations, and provides consistent interpretation. This study compares Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine with radial basis function kernel, Gradient Boosting, and Random Forest using 569 instances and 30 numerical features extracted from digitized fine-needle aspiration cell nuclei. Standardization for scale-sensitive algorithms was placed inside the cross-validation pipeline. The malignant class was treated as the clinically critical positive class, and the models were evaluated using accuracy, malignant precision, malignant recall, malignant F1-score, specificity, balanced accuracy, Matthews Correlation Coefficient, and AUC. SVM RBF achieved the strongest overall test performance with accuracy of 0.9825, malignant recall of 0.9762, malignant F1-score of 0.9762, balanced accuracy of 0.9812, MCC of 0.9623, and AUC of 0.9977. A Wilcoxon signed-rank comparison across ten folds showed no significant difference between SVM RBF and Logistic Regression, while SVM RBF was significantly better than Gradient Boosting for malignant F1-score. Permutation importance applied to the selected SVM RBF model indicated that worst smoothness, worst texture, worst area, radius error, and worst radius contributed strongly to the predictions. The findings are limited to one curated public dataset and do not establish clinical validity
Downloads
References
[1] E. Setiana, Marwondo, V. R. Danestiara, and Wiyanudin, “Sentiment Analysis of Online Lecture Implementation Using the Support Vector Machine Algorithm,” Nuansa Informatika, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 66–70, 2023, doi: 10.25134/ilkom.v17i2.11.
[2] R. Rianti, R. Andarsyah, and R. M. Awangga, “Application of PCA and Clustering Algorithms for Higher Education Quality Analysis in LLDIKTI Region IV,” Nuansa Informatika, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 67–77, 2024, doi: 10.25134/ilkom.v18i2.211.
[3] A. Mukhyidin, A. Faqih, and A. R. Rinald, “Using K-Means for District-City Poverty Clustering in Indonesia,” Nuansa Informatika, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2025, doi: 10.25134/ilkom.v19i1.300.
[4] N. H. Harani, M. Y. H. Setyawan, and D. Ferdinan, “Predicting Basic Shipping Tariff Using Machine Learning,” Nuansa Informatika, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 58–66, 2025, doi: 10.25134/ilkom.v19i2.388.
[5] F. Martinez-Plumed et al., “CRISP-DM Twenty Years Later: From Data Mining Processes to Data Science Trajectories,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3048–3061, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2019.2962680.
[6] D. Dua and C. Graff, “UCI Machine Learning Repository,” University of California, Irvine, School of Information and Computer Sciences, 2019.
[7] G. Biau and E. Scornet, “A Random Forest Guided Tour,” TEST, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 197–227, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11749-016-0481-7.
[8] P. Probst, M. N. Wright, and A. L. Boulesteix, “Hyperparameters and Tuning Strategies for Random Forest,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 9, no. 3, 2019, doi: 10.1002/widm.1301.
[9] L. Yang and A. Shami, “On Hyperparameter Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms: Theory and Practice,” Neurocomputing, vol. 415, pp. 295–316, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061.
[10] J. Li, K. Cheng, S. Wang, F. Morstatter, R. P. Trevino, J. Tang, and H. Liu, “Feature Selection: A Data Perspective,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1–45, 2017, doi: 10.1145/3136625.
[11] C. Molnar, Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable, 2nd ed. 2022.
[12] S. M. Lundberg and S. I. Lee, “A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, pp. 4765–4774.
[13] Z. C. Lipton, “The Mythos of Model Interpretability,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 36–43, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3233231.
[14] D. Chicco and G. Jurman, “The Advantages of the Matthews Correlation Coefficient over F1 Score and Accuracy in Binary Classification Evaluation,” BMC Genomics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7.
[15] G. Varoquaux and V. Cheplygina, “Machine Learning for Medical Imaging: Methodological Failures and Recommendations for the Future,” npj Digital Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00592-y.
[16] S. Kapoor and A. Narayanan, “Leakage and the Reproducibility Crisis in Machine-Learning-Based Science,” Patterns, vol. 4, no. 9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804.
[17] W. N. Street, W. H. Wolberg, and O. L. Mangasarian, “Nuclear Feature Extraction for Breast Tumor Diagnosis,” in Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 1905, pp. 861–870, 1993, doi: 10.1117/12.148698.
[18] C. W. Elston and I. O. Ellis, “Pathological Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer. I. The Value of Histological Grade in Breast Cancer: Experience from a Large Study with Long-Term Follow-Up,” Histopathology, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 403–410, 1991, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x.
[19] A. F. Agarap, “On Breast Cancer Detection: An Application of Machine Learning Algorithms on the Wisconsin Diagnostic Dataset,” arXiv:1711.07831, 2017.
[20] J. Demsar, “Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, pp. 1–30, 2006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nuansa Informatika
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
