Breast Cancer Classification Using Machine

Learning
Problem Statement
Find out whether the cancer is benign or malignant

In [1]: #importing libraries

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import [Link] as plt
import seaborn as sns

import warnings
[Link]('ignore')

Reading the dataset

In [2]: df = pd.read_csv('data/[Link]')
[Link]()

Out[2]:
id diagnosis radius_mean texture_mean perimeter_mean area_mean smoothness_mea

0 842302 M 17.99 10.38 122.80 1001.0 0.1184

1 842517 M 20.57 17.77 132.90 1326.0 0.0847

2 84300903 M 19.69 21.25 130.00 1203.0 0.1096

3 84348301 M 11.42 20.38 77.58 386.1 0.1425

4 84358402 M 20.29 14.34 135.10 1297.0 0.1003

5 rows × 33 columns

Attribute Information:

Features are computed from a digitized image of a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a breast
mass. They describe characteristics of the cell nuclei present in the image.

1 ID number

2 Diagnosis (M = malignant, B = benign)

3 - 32 (Ten real-valued features are computed for each cell nucleus):

radius (mean of distances from center to points on the perimeter)

texture (standard deviation of gray-scale values)
 perimeter
area
smoothness (local variation in radius lengths)
compactness (perimeter^2 / area - 1.0)
concavity (severity of concave portions of the contour)
concave points (number of concave portions of the contour)
symmetry
fractal dimension ("coastline approximation" - 1)

The mean, standard error and "worst" or largest (mean of the three largest values) of these
features were computed for each image, resulting in 30 features.

In [3]: [Link]

Out[3]: (569, 33)

We have 569 observations and 33 columns in this dataset

In [4]: [Link]()
 <class '[Link]'>
RangeIndex: 569 entries, 0 to 568
Data columns (total 33 columns):
# Column Non-Null Count Dtype
--- ------ -------------- -----
0 id 569 non-null int64
1 diagnosis 569 non-null object
2 radius_mean 569 non-null float64
3 texture_mean 569 non-null float64
4 perimeter_mean 569 non-null float64
5 area_mean 569 non-null float64
6 smoothness_mean 569 non-null float64
7 compactness_mean 569 non-null float64
8 concavity_mean 569 non-null float64
9 concave points_mean 569 non-null float64
10 symmetry_mean 569 non-null float64
11 fractal_dimension_mean 569 non-null float64
12 radius_se 569 non-null float64
13 texture_se 569 non-null float64
14 perimeter_se 569 non-null float64
15 area_se 569 non-null float64
16 smoothness_se 569 non-null float64
17 compactness_se 569 non-null float64
18 concavity_se 569 non-null float64
19 concave points_se 569 non-null float64
20 symmetry_se 569 non-null float64
21 fractal_dimension_se 569 non-null float64
22 radius_worst 569 non-null float64
23 texture_worst 569 non-null float64
24 perimeter_worst 569 non-null float64
25 area_worst 569 non-null float64
26 smoothness_worst 569 non-null float64
27 compactness_worst 569 non-null float64
28 concavity_worst 569 non-null float64
29 concave points_worst 569 non-null float64
30 symmetry_worst 569 non-null float64
31 fractal_dimension_worst 569 non-null float64
32 Unnamed: 32 0 non-null float64
dtypes: float64(31), int64(1), object(1)
memory usage: 146.8+ KB

Every feature other than our target diagonsis is numerical variables

Exploratory Data Analysis

In [5]: #statistical summary of features
[Link]().T
Out[5]: count mean std min 25%

id 569.0 3.037183e+07 1.250206e+08 8670.000000 869218.000000 906024.0

radius_mean 569.0 1.412729e+01 3.524049e+00 6.981000 11.700000 13.3

texture_mean 569.0 1.928965e+01 4.301036e+00 9.710000 16.170000 18.84

perimeter_mean 569.0 9.196903e+01 2.429898e+01 43.790000 75.170000 86.24

area_mean 569.0 6.548891e+02 3.519141e+02 143.500000 420.300000 551.1

smoothness_mean 569.0 9.636028e-02 1.406413e-02 0.052630 0.086370 0.0

compactness_mean 569.0 1.043410e-01 5.281276e-02 0.019380 0.064920 0.0

concavity_mean 569.0 8.879932e-02 7.971981e-02 0.000000 0.029560 0.0

concave points_mean 569.0 4.891915e-02 3.880284e-02 0.000000 0.020310 0.0

symmetry_mean 569.0 1.811619e-01 2.741428e-02 0.106000 0.161900 0.1

fractal_dimension_mean 569.0 6.279761e-02 7.060363e-03 0.049960 0.057700 0.0

radius_se 569.0 4.051721e-01 2.773127e-01 0.111500 0.232400 0.3

texture_se 569.0 1.216853e+00 5.516484e-01 0.360200 0.833900 1.1

perimeter_se 569.0 2.866059e+00 2.021855e+00 0.757000 1.606000 2.2

area_se 569.0 4.033708e+01 4.549101e+01 6.802000 17.850000 24.5

smoothness_se 569.0 7.040979e-03 3.002518e-03 0.001713 0.005169 0.0

compactness_se 569.0 2.547814e-02 1.790818e-02 0.002252 0.013080 0.0

concavity_se 569.0 3.189372e-02 3.018606e-02 0.000000 0.015090 0.0

concave points_se 569.0 1.179614e-02 6.170285e-03 0.000000 0.007638 0.0

symmetry_se 569.0 2.054230e-02 8.266372e-03 0.007882 0.015160 0.0

fractal_dimension_se 569.0 3.794904e-03 2.646071e-03 0.000895 0.002248 0.0

radius_worst 569.0 1.626919e+01 4.833242e+00 7.930000 13.010000 14.9

texture_worst 569.0 2.567722e+01 6.146258e+00 12.020000 21.080000 25.4

perimeter_worst 569.0 1.072612e+02 3.360254e+01 50.410000 84.110000 97.6

area_worst 569.0 8.805831e+02 5.693570e+02 185.200000 515.300000 686.5

smoothness_worst 569.0 1.323686e-01 2.283243e-02 0.071170 0.116600 0.1

compactness_worst 569.0 2.542650e-01 1.573365e-01 0.027290 0.147200 0.2

concavity_worst 569.0 2.721885e-01 2.086243e-01 0.000000 0.114500 0.2

concave points_worst 569.0 1.146062e-01 6.573234e-02 0.000000 0.064930 0.0

symmetry_worst 569.0 2.900756e-01 6.186747e-02 0.156500 0.250400 0.2

fractal_dimension_worst 569.0 8.394582e-02 1.806127e-02 0.055040 0.071460 0.0

Unnamed: 32 0.0 NaN NaN NaN NaN

 Column Id is not relevent our machine learnig problem
Last column Unnamed: 32 is full of NaN values
Column diagnosis is our target variable

In [6]: #dropping unnecessary columns

df = [Link](['id', 'Unnamed: 32'], axis=1)

In [3]: [Link](figsize=(5,5))
ax = [Link](x=df['diagnosis'])
for p in [Link]:
[Link]('{:.1f}'.format(p.get_height()), (p.get_x()+0.25, p.get_height()

[Link]('count_plot.jpg')
[Link]()

There is not that much imbalance in this dataset

In [8]: #selecting only numerical features

num_feat = df.select_dtypes(include=['float64', 'int64']).columns
num_feat
Out[8]: Index(['radius_mean', 'texture_mean', 'perimeter_mean', 'area_mean',
'smoothness_mean', 'compactness_mean', 'concavity_mean',
'concave points_mean', 'symmetry_mean', 'fractal_dimension_mean',
'radius_se', 'texture_se', 'perimeter_se', 'area_se', 'smoothness_se',
'compactness_se', 'concavity_se', 'concave points_se', 'symmetry_se',
'fractal_dimension_se', 'radius_worst', 'texture_worst',
'perimeter_worst', 'area_worst', 'smoothness_worst',
'compactness_worst', 'concavity_worst', 'concave points_worst',
'symmetry_worst', 'fractal_dimension_worst'],
dtype='object')

In [9]: #plotting distributions of numerical features

[Link](figsize=(30,50))

for i, col in enumerate(num_feat, 1):

[Link](10, 3, i)
[Link](df[col], kde=True, stat="density", kde_kws=dict(cut=3))
 Features 'radius_mean', 'texture_mean', 'perimeter_mean', 'smoothness_mean',
'symmetry_mean', 'texture_worst' and 'smoothness_worst', follow normal distribution.
Other features follows right skewed distribution.
Most of the features has outliers

In [10]: #correlation heatmap

[Link](figsize=(15,15))
[Link]([Link](), annot=True, vmax=1, vmin=-1)

Out[10]: <AxesSubplot: >

There are multicollinearity in this dataset. Several features show strong posistive
correlation.
In [11]: #finding correlated features

def correlation(dataset, threshold):

col_corr = set() # Set of all the names of correlated columns
corr_matrix = [Link]()
for i in range(len(corr_matrix.columns)):
for j in range(i):
if abs(corr_matrix.iloc[i, j]) > threshold:
colname = corr_matrix.columns[i] # getting the name of column
col_corr.add(colname)
return col_corr

In [12]: correlatd_col = correlation(df, 0.8) #we are setting threshold as 0.8

print('Features showing multicollinearity : ')

correlatd_col

Features showing multicollinearity :

Out[12]: {'area_mean',
'area_se',
'area_worst',
'compactness_worst',
'concave points_mean',
'concave points_worst',
'concavity_mean',
'concavity_se',
'concavity_worst',
'fractal_dimension_se',
'fractal_dimension_worst',
'perimeter_mean',
'perimeter_se',
'perimeter_worst',
'radius_worst',
'smoothness_worst',
'texture_worst'}

Data Preprocessing
In [13]: #making copy of dataframe for preprocessing
data = [Link]()

Handling null values

In [14]: #checking for null values

[Link]().sum()
Out[14]: diagnosis 0
radius_mean 0
texture_mean 0
perimeter_mean 0
area_mean 0
smoothness_mean 0
compactness_mean 0
concavity_mean 0
concave points_mean 0
symmetry_mean 0
fractal_dimension_mean 0
radius_se 0
texture_se 0
perimeter_se 0
area_se 0
smoothness_se 0
compactness_se 0
concavity_se 0
concave points_se 0
symmetry_se 0
fractal_dimension_se 0
radius_worst 0
texture_worst 0
perimeter_worst 0
area_worst 0
smoothness_worst 0
compactness_worst 0
concavity_worst 0
concave points_worst 0
symmetry_worst 0
fractal_dimension_worst 0
dtype: int64

There are no null values in the dataset

Handling duplicated observations

In [15]: #checking for duplicated observations

[Link]().sum()

Out[15]: 0

There are no duplicate observations

Dealing Multicollinearity

In [16]: #removig columns with multicollinearity

data = [Link](correlatd_col, axis=1)

[Link]

Out[16]: (569, 14)

 We have removed 17 columns that showed multicollinearity

Encoding categorical variable

In [17]: data['diagnosis'].unique()

Out[17]: array(['M', 'B'], dtype=object)

In [18]: #doing one-hot encoding

data['diagnosis'] = pd.get_dummies([Link], drop_first=True)

[Link]()

Out[18]:
diagnosis radius_mean texture_mean smoothness_mean compactness_mean symmetry_mean

0 1 17.99 10.38 0.11840 0.27760 0.2419

1 1 20.57 17.77 0.08474 0.07864 0.1812

2 1 19.69 21.25 0.10960 0.15990 0.2069

3 1 11.42 20.38 0.14250 0.28390 0.2597

4 1 20.29 14.34 0.10030 0.13280 0.1809

In [19]: data['diagnosis'].unique()

Out[19]: array([1, 0], dtype=uint8)

1 represents Malignant
0 represents Benign

Seperating features and matrix

In [20]: X = [Link]('diagnosis', axis=1)

y = data['diagnosis']

Splitting dataset into test and train set

In [21]: from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_sta

In [22]: print('Shape of Train set: ', X_train.shape)

print('Shape of Test set: ', X_test.shape)

Shape of Train set: (455, 13)

Shape of Test set: (114, 13)

There are 455 observations in test set and 114 observations in train set
In [23]: X_train.head()

Out[23]:
radius_mean texture_mean smoothness_mean compactness_mean symmetry_mean fractal_d

560 14.05 27.15 0.09929 0.11260 0.1537

428 11.13 16.62 0.08151 0.03834 0.1511

198 19.18 22.49 0.08523 0.14280 0.1767

203 13.81 23.75 0.13230 0.17680 0.2251

41 10.95 21.35 0.12270 0.12180 0.1895

Feature scaling

In [24]: #standardizing the dataset

from [Link] import StandardScaler

scaler = StandardScaler()
X_train = scaler.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test = [Link](X_test)

In [25]: X_train

Out[25]: array([[-0.01330339, 1.7757658 , 0.22879041, ..., 0.79264996,

0.03869712, -1.08014517],
[-0.8448276 , -0.6284278 , -1.01982093, ..., -0.92858668,
-0.04989848, -0.85773964],
[ 1.44755936, 0.71180168, -0.75858166, ..., 0.10046365,
-0.7911067 , 0.4967602 ],
...,
[-0.46608541, -1.49375484, -1.56687843, ..., -0.63701388,
1.02323128, -1.02997851],
[-0.50025764, -1.62161319, -0.42149874, ..., -1.00532536,
-1.14798474, 0.35796577],
[ 0.96060511, 1.21181916, 0.62275607, ..., 0.69523115,
-1.12801953, -1.23064515]])

Now the dataset is standardized (mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1).

Building Machine Learning Models

1. Logistic regression

Model training

In [26]: #instantiating the model

from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression

logReg = LogisticRegression(random_state=5)
 #training the model with train set
[Link](X_train, y_train)

Out[26]: ▾ LogisticRegression

LogisticRegression(random_state=5)

Model evaluation

In [27]: from [Link] import accuracy_score, precision_score, recall_score, f1_score

#prediction for test data

y_pred = [Link](X_test)

#evaluting the model

acc = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)
pre = precision_score(y_test, y_pred)
rec = recall_score(y_test, y_pred)
f1 = f1_score(y_test, y_pred)

In [28]: #storing evaluation metrics to a dataframe

results = [Link]([['Logistic Regression', acc, pre, rec, f1]],

columns=['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall', 'F1 Sco

results

Out[28]: Model Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score

0 Logistic Regression 0.947368 0.933333 0.933333 0.933333

With default parameters Model is giving accuracy of 94.7%

In [29]: #printing confusion matrix

confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred)

Out[29]: array([[66, 3],

[ 3, 42]], dtype=int64)

There are 108 correct predictions (66 TP and 42 TN)

6 predictions are wrong (3 FP and 3 FN)

Cross validation

In [30]: from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score

accuracies = cross_val_score(estimator=logReg, X=X_train, y=y_train, cv=10)

 print('Accuracy is {:.2f} %'.format([Link]()*100))
print('Standard Deviation is {:.2f} %'.format([Link]()*100))

Accuracy is 95.84 %
Standard Deviation is 2.28 %

Our model has accuracy with in the cross validation score

2. Random Forest Classifier

Model Training

In [31]: #instantiating the model

from [Link] import RandomForestClassifier

ranForest = RandomForestClassifier(random_state=5)

#training the model

[Link](X_train, y_train)

Out[31]: ▾ RandomForestClassifier

RandomForestClassifier(random_state=5)

In [32]: #model prediction with test data

y_pred = [Link](X_test)

Model Evaluation

In [33]: #evaluting the model

acc = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)
pre = precision_score(y_test, y_pred)
rec = recall_score(y_test, y_pred)
f1 = f1_score(y_test, y_pred)

In [34]: #storing evaluation metrics to a dataframe

rf_results = [Link]([['Random Forest Classifier', acc, pre, rec, f1]],

columns=['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall', 'F1 Sco

results = [Link](rf_results, ignore_index=True)

results

Out[34]: Model Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score

0 Logistic Regression 0.947368 0.933333 0.933333 0.933333

1 Random Forest Classifier 0.929825 0.911111 0.911111 0.911111

Random Forest Classifier has lower scores than Logistic regression

In [35]: #printing confusion matrix
confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred)

Out[35]: array([[65, 4],

[ 4, 41]], dtype=int64)

Random Forest Classifier made 106 correct and 8 wrong predictions

Cross Validation
In [36]: from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score

accuracies = cross_val_score(estimator=ranForest, X=X_train, y=y_train, cv=10)

print('Accuracy is {:.2f} %'.format([Link]()*100))

print('Standard Deviation is {:.2f} %'.format([Link]()*100))

Accuracy is 94.28 %
Standard Deviation is 3.01 %

Random Forest has lower accuracy and higher standard deviaion.

Since Logistic regression has better performance we will take it as the final model and
tune it for better performance.

Hyperparameter Tuning
In [37]: #specifying differnet hyperparameters for random search cross validation
from sklearn.model_selection import RandomizedSearchCV

params = {'penalty': ['l1', 'l2', 'elasticnet', 'none'], 'C': [0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
'solver': ['newton-cg', 'lbfgs', 'liblinear', 'sag', 'saga']}

In [38]: random_search = RandomizedSearchCV(estimator=logReg, param_distributions=params, cv

random_search.fit(X_train, y_train)

Fitting 10 folds for each of 10 candidates, totalling 100 fits

Out[38]: ▸ RandomizedSearchCV
▸ estimator: LogisticRegression
▸ LogisticRegression

In [39]: #finding the best estimator

random_search.best_estimator_

Out[39]: ▾ LogisticRegression

LogisticRegression(C=1.5, penalty='none', random_state=5, solver='s

aga')
In [40]: #finding best score
random_search.best_score_

Out[40]: 0.9915658504781224

In [41]: #finding best params

random_search.best_params_

Out[41]: {'solver': 'saga', 'penalty': 'none', 'C': 1.5}

We got the best params value as optimization algorithm = saga, norm of the penalty =
None and regularization parameter C = 1.5

Final Model
In [42]: #training the model with best hyperparameters

classifier = LogisticRegression(solver='sag', penalty=None, C=1.5)

[Link](X_train, y_train)

Out[42]: ▾ LogisticRegression

LogisticRegression(C=1.5, penalty=None, solver='sag')

In [43]: #making predictions with test data

y_pred = [Link](X_test)

Model evaluation
In [44]: #calculating evaluation metrics
acc = accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)
pre = precision_score(y_test, y_pred)
rec = recall_score(y_test, y_pred)
f1 = f1_score(y_test, y_pred)

#storing evaluation metrics to a dataframe

lg_results = [Link]([['Tuned Logistic Regression', acc, pre, rec, f1]],

columns=['Model', 'Accuracy', 'Precision', 'Recall', 'F1 Sco

results = [Link](lg_results, ignore_index=True)

results

Out[44]: Model Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score

0 Logistic Regression 0.947368 0.933333 0.933333 0.933333

1 Random Forest Classifier 0.929825 0.911111 0.911111 0.911111

2 Tuned Logistic Regression 0.947368 0.914894 0.955556 0.934783

 The tuned model has same accuracy as default logistic regression while there is a
decrease in precision score. There are improvement in Recall and F1 score

In [45]: #printing confusion matrix

confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred)

Out[45]: array([[65, 4],

[ 2, 43]], dtype=int64)

The model predicted 108 correct prediction while 8 were wrong

Two predictions are False Positive while 4 are False Negative

Making a Sample Prediction

Sample Observations are:

radius_mean = 11.13, texture_mean = 16.62, smoothness_mean = 0.08151,

compactness_mean = 0.03834, symmetry_mean = 0.1511, fractal_dimension_mean =
0.06148, radius_se = 0.1415, texture_se = 0.9671, smoothness_se = 0.005883,
compactness_se = 0.006263, concave points_se = 0.006189, symmetry_se = 0.02009,
symmetry_worst = 0.2383

In [69]: sample_obs = [11.13, 16.62, 0.08151, 0.03834, 0.1511, 0.06148, 0.1415, 0.9671, 0.00

#making prediction
[Link]([Link]([sample_obs]))

Out[69]: array([0], dtype=uint8)

Breast Cancer with the given observations is Benign

With this information the patient can get correct treatment for the disease.