Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Machine Learning-Based Classification of Bone Tumor Severity: A Comparative Study of Classical Algorithms

Listia Rizka Triaswati
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
listiarizaka@gmail.com
Dang Thi Thanh Thuy
Vietnam National University – University of Science
Viet Nam
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of four machine learning algorithms Naïve Bayes, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, and Random Forest for bone tumor grade classification using structured clinical data and to identify the most effective algorithm for supporting diagnostic decision-making in orthopedic oncology.

    Methodology: An experimental quantitative research design was employed using a publicly available Bone Tumor dataset from Kaggle containing 500 records. Model development was conducted in Google Colaboratory using Python and Scikit-learn. The evaluated algorithms included Naïve Bayes, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, and Random Forest. Data preprocessing, feature selection, and train-test splitting (80:20) were performed. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics.

    Main Findings: The results demonstrated that all machine learning models were capable of classifying bone tumor grades with satisfactory performance. Logistic Regression achieved the best overall performance, obtaining 81% accuracy, precision values of 79–82%, recall values of 73–86%, and F1-scores of 76–84%. Decision Tree and Naïve Bayes showed moderate performance, while Random Forest exhibited reduced testing performance despite strong training results, indicating overfitting and lower generalization capability.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes a comprehensive comparison of classical machine learning algorithms for bone tumor grade classification using structured clinicopathological data rather than imaging data. The findings demonstrate that interpretable models such as Logistic Regression can achieve reliable predictive performance, providing an accessible and computationally efficient alternative for clinical decision-support systems in resource-limited healthcare.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    L. R. Triaswati and D. T. T. Thuy, “Machine Learning-Based Classification of Bone Tumor Severity: A Comparative Study of Classical Algorithms”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 138–157, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i3.3385.

    More Citation Formats

  • 33
    Abstract views
    34
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. ghooni, G. Bratke, P. Landgraf, T. Simon, D. Maintz, and P. Eysel, “The diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma in children and adolescents,” Dtsch. Arztebl. Int., vol. 120, no. 24, pp. 405–412, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0079
    2. E. Young, B. Kelly, and J. E. Cain, “Targeting developmental vulnerabilities in childhood sarcomas,” Cancer Metastasis Rev., vol. 44, no. 4, p. 72, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10555-025-10286-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-025-10286-y
    3. G. Iacobellis, A. Leggio, C. Salzillo, S. Lucà, R. Ortega-Ruiz, and A. Marzullo, “Analysis and historical evolution of paediatric bone tumours: The importance of early diagnosis in the detection of childhood skeletal malignancies,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 17, no. 3, p. 451, 2025, doi: 10.3390/cancers17030451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17030451
    4. Y. Qiao, C. Eisfeld, R. von Eisenhart-Rothe, and F. Hinterwimmer, “Performance comparison and future perspectives of deep learning and classical machine learning in bone tumor applications: a systematic review (2019–2025),” BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., vol. 26, no. 1, p. 117, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s12911-026-03401-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-026-03401-8
    5. W. Li et al., “Global cancer statistics for adolescents and young adults: population based study,” J. Hematol. Oncol., vol. 17, no. 1, p. 99, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s13045-024-01623-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-024-01623-9
    6. Y. Chen, Q. Lian, W. Sun, and X. Lian, “A relief or new challenges? Global, regional, and national burden of malignant neoplasm of bone and articular cartilage in children and adolescents from 1990 to 2021 and its prediction to 2035,” Adv. Orthop., vol. 2, pp. 117–131, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.advop.2025.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advop.2025.09.001
    7. Y. Li, B. Dong, and P. Yuan, “The diagnostic value of machine learning for the classification of malignant bone tumor: A systematic evaluation and meta-analysis,” Front. Oncol., vol. Volume 13, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1207175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1207175
    8. Y. Guan, W. Zhang, Y. Mao, and S. Li, “Nanoparticles and bone microenvironment: a comprehensive review for malignant bone tumor diagnosis and treatment,” Mol. Cancer, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 246, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12943-024-02161-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-024-02161-1
    9. A. E. Bădilă, D. M. Rădulescu, A.-G. Niculescu, A. M. Grumezescu, M. Rădulescu, and A. R. Rădulescu, “Recent advances in the treatment of bone metastases and primary bone tumors: an up-to-date review,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/cancers13164229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13164229
    10. B. Abhisheka, S. K. Biswas, B. Purkayastha, D. Das, and A. Escargueil, “Recent trend in medical imaging modalities and their applications in disease diagnosis: a review,” Multimed. Tools Appl., vol. 83, no. 14, pp. 43035–43070, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-023-17326-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17326-1
    11. S. Hussain et al., “Modern diagnostic imaging technique applications and risk factors in the medical field: A review,” Biomed Res. Int., vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 5164970, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/5164970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5164970
    12. D. P. Frush, M. J. Callahan, B. D. Coley, H. R. Nadel, and R. Paul Guillerman, “Comparison of the different imaging modalities used to image pediatric oncology patients: A COG diagnostic imaging committee/SPR oncology committee white paper,” Pediatr. Blood Cancer, vol. 70, no. S4, p. e30298, 2023, doi: 10.1002/pbc.30298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.30298
    13. P. Pricolo et al., “Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) reporting with the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P): inter-observer agreement between readers of different expertise levels,” Cancer Imaging, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 77, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-00350-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00350-x
    14. Z. A. Ramadan, A. H. Elmorsy, S. E. Taman, and F. A. Denewar, “Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement of bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS) in the interpretation of bone tumors on computed tomography,” Clin. Imaging, vol. 117, p. 110367, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110367
    15. L. Quinn et al., “Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging: a methodological systematic review,” Br. J. Radiol., vol. 96, no. 1148, p. 20220972, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220972. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220972
    16. C. J. R. Mullen, R. D. Barr, and E. L. Franco, “Timeliness of diagnosis and treatment: The challenge of childhood cancers,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 125, no. 12, pp. 1612–1620, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01533-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01533-4
    17. I. Ahmad et al., “New paradigms to break barriers in early cancer detection for improved prognosis and treatment outcomes,” J. Gene Med., vol. 26, no. 8, p. e3730, 2024, doi: 10.1002/jgm.3730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jgm.3730
    18. A. Rao, N. E. Rich, J. A. Marrero, A. C. Yopp, and A. G. Singal, “Diagnostic and therapeutic delays in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw., vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1063–1071, 2021, doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.7689
    19. L. Adlung, Y. Cohen, U. Mor, and E. Elinav, “Machine learning in clinical decision making,” Med, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 642–665, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2021.04.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medj.2021.04.006
    20. S. Eloranta and M. Boman, “Predictive models for clinical decision making: Deep dives in practical machine learning,” J. Intern. Med., vol. 292, no. 2, pp. 278–295, 2022, doi: 10.1111/joim.13483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.13483
    21. S. M. D. A. C. Jayatilake and G. U. Ganegoda, “Involvement of Machine Learning Tools in Healthcare Decision Making,” J. Healthc. Eng., vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 6679512, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/6679512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6679512
    22. E. V Varlamova et al., “Machine learning meets cancer,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1100, 2024, doi: 10.3390/cancers16061100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16061100
    23. K. Kourou, K. P. Exarchos, C. Papaloukas, P. Sakaloglou, T. Exarchos, and D. I. Fotiadis, “Applied machine learning in cancer research: A systematic review for patient diagnosis, classification and prognosis,” Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., vol. 19, pp. 5546–5555, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.10.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.10.006
    24. A. Sharma and R. Rani, “A systematic review of applications of machine learning in cancer prediction and diagnosis,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 4875–4896, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11831-021-09556-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09556-z
    25. H. Wu et al., “Predicting chronic pain and treatment outcomes using machine learning models based on high-dimensional clinical data from a large retrospective cohort,” Clin. Ther., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 490–498, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.04.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.04.012
    26. M. F. Kabir, T. Chen, and S. A. Ludwig, “A performance analysis of dimensionality reduction algorithms in machine learning models for cancer prediction,” Healthc. Anal., vol. 3, p. 100125, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.health.2022.100125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.health.2022.100125
    27. J. Rahnenführer et al., “Statistical analysis of high-dimensional biomedical data: a gentle introduction to analytical goals, common approaches and challenges,” BMC Med., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 182, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02858-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02858-y
    28. C. Pan, L. Lian, J. Chen, and R. Huang, “FemurTumorNet: Bone tumor classification in the proximal femur using DenseNet model based on radiographs,” J. Bone Oncol., vol. 42, p. 100504, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2023.100504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2023.100504
    29. N. N. Prakash, V. Rajesh, D. L. Namakhwa, S. Dwarkanath Pande, and S. H. Ahammad, “A DenseNet CNN-based liver lesion prediction and classification for future medical diagnosis,” Sci. African, vol. 20, p. e01629, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01629
    30. N. Hasan, Y. Bao, A. Shawon, and Y. Huang, “A DenseNet CNN-based liver lesion prediction and classification for future medical diagnosis,” SN Comput. Sci., vol. 2, no. 5, p. 389, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42979-021-00782-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00782-7
    31. P. S. Papageorgiou et al., “Artificial intelligence in primary malignant bone tumor imaging: a narrative review,” 2025. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15131714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15131714
    32. H. Hosseini, S. Heydari, K. Hushmandi, S. Daneshi, and R. Raesi, “Bone tumors: A systematic review of prevalence, risk determinants, and survival patterns,” BMC Cancer, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 321, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-13720-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13720-0
    33. Y. Shen et al., “The association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies,” Eur. J. Nutr., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 653–672, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00394-023-03302-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-023-03302-w
    34. G. K. Thakur, A. Thakur, S. Kulkarni, N. Khan, and S. Khan, “Deep learning approaches for medical image analysis and diagnosis,” Cureus, vol. 16, no. 5, 2024, doi: 10.7759/cureus.59507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.59507
    35. H. A. Helaly, M. Badawy, and A. Y. Haikal, “A review of deep learning approaches in clinical and healthcare systems based on medical image analysis,” Multimed. Tools Appl., vol. 83, no. 12, pp. 36039–36080, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11042-023-16605-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-16605-1
    36. X. Chen et al., “Recent advances and clinical applications of deep learning in medical image analysis,” Med. Image Anal., vol. 79, p. 102444, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.media.2022.102444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2022.102444
    37. N. Tajbakhsh, L. Jeyaseelan, Q. Li, J. N. Chiang, Z. Wu, and X. Ding, “Embracing imperfect datasets: A review of deep learning solutions for medical image segmentation,” Med. Image Anal., vol. 63, p. 101693, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.media.2020.101693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101693
    38. Y. Xu, T. M. Khan, Y. Song, and E. Meijering, “Edge deep learning in computer vision and medical diagnostics: A comprehensive survey,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 58, no. 3, p. 93, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10462-024-11033-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-11033-5
    39. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2018.
    40. J. R. Quinlan, “Induction of decision trees,” Mach. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–106, 1986, doi: 10.1007/BF00116251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022643204877
    41. G. James, “An introduction to statistical learning with applications in R,” 2013, Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7
    42. S. Cuzzubbo and A. F. Carpentier, “Applications of melanin and melanin-like nanoparticles in cancer therapy: A review of recent advances,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/cancers13061463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061463
    43. S. Gitto et al., “MRI radiomics-based machine-learning classification of bone chondrosarcoma,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 128, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109043