Skip to content
Open access

A comparative evaluation of quantum machine learning architectures for breast cancer classification using clinical and genomic data

Jul 2026 · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · Vol 9 · 0 citations · 7 references
Medicine

TL;DR

The results show that for high dimensional breast cancer data, currently available simulator-based QML models can learn meaningful patterns with limited quantum resources, but are not as effective as powerful classical machine learning models when complete feature representations are available.

Abstract

Introduction In recent years, high-dimensional clinical and genomic data have gained significant importance for prognosis and personalized medicine in breast cancer. But the use of quantum machine learning (QML) on such data is limited by the availability of few qubits, the computation time of quantum simulation, and dimensionality reduction. This work systematically compares several QML architectures for breast cancer classification in the presence of realistic and simulator constraints. Methods The experiments were performed on a dataset of METABRIC breast cancer patients (2,509 patients). After handling missing values and one-hot encoding, there were 63 features in the processed data set. The feature space was reduced by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to 12, 4 and 2 components for the implementations of quantum computers, respectively, with 56.10 ± 0.14%, 26.78 ± 0.57% and 16.23 ± 0.33% of the variance retained. Three QML models were tested: Quantum Neural Networks (QNN), Quantum K-Nearest Neighbors (QKNN), and Quantum Support Vector Machines (QSVM), with the models being simulated. Seven classical classification models were tested: Logistic Regression, SVM with RBF kernel, K-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM and Multilayer Perceptron, both with PCA-matched and full 63-feature representation. All primary results are reported with 5-fold cross validation. Results Among the evaluated QML architectures, QKNN using 12 principal components achieved the strongest performance, attaining an accuracy of **75.11% ± 3.76%**, an F1-score of **0.7088 ± 0.0433**, and a ROC-AUC of **0.8148 ± 0.0394**. Even though all of the QML models performed significantly poorly in comparison to classical models trained on the entire 63-feature data set, the latter models were able to achieve about **94% accuracy** with XGBoost, Random Forest, and Logistic Regression. The comparison also showed the effect of information loss due to PCA is significant in predictive performance in both classical and quantum models. Discussion The results show that for high dimensional breast cancer data, currently available simulator-based QML models can learn meaningful patterns with limited quantum resources, but are not as effective as powerful classical machine learning models when complete feature representations are available. The study does not report any sort of quantum advantage or clinical use, but rather a benchmark of current QML architectures that has been rigorously calculated and repeated, with a focus on the impact of dimensionality reduction, validation approaches, and simulator limitations, as well as outlining challenges that need to be overcome prior to practical implementation on real quantum hardware.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Aug 2026

Comparing Classical and Quantum Machine Learning Models for Breast Cancer Classification on the WDBC Dataset

Breast cancer is a major health concern, and early detection can make a great difference in treatment and survival rates for breast cancer patients. Machine learning methods have noticeably improved prediction accuracy on high-dimensional medical datasets and have become widely used tools in medical diagnostics. The tr...

Jovana Gluhovic · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Benchmarking Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models on Oncological Data

This work develops a methodology for fair benchmarking of quantum and classical machine learning models, based on the Red Cedar quantum machine learning and resource estimation framework and AutoML-optimized classical neural networks, and finds no evidence of quantum advantage.

Sydney Leither, Thomas Lubinski, Michael Kubal et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Quantum Machine Learning in Oncology: A Systematic Review of Clinical Applications, Challenges, and Future Research Directions

The findings show that QML research is dominated by classification and detection tasks, while segmentation is beginning to emerge, and overall, QML in oncology remains in its early stages of development.

K. I. Ghauth, Yanche Ari Kustiawan · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Comparative Study of Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models in Binary Classification

It is indicated that for small structured datasets, classifiers based on quantum computing have not yet surpassed well-tuned classical counterparts, though not on malignant-class recall, where the VQC in particular performed worse than the classical baselines.

Anand Kumar Mishra, Ramanuj Awasthi · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Quantum Kernel Estimation for the Discovery of Early Lung Cancer Detection

Results support quantum kernel methods as a promising approach for cfDNA-based lung cancer detection using DNA fragmentomics and DNA methylation using quantum-classical hybrid machine learning.

H. Javidi, A. Zajichek, Hakan Doga et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Transferability of Quantum Feature Maps from Simulation to Hardware in Healthcare Data

Findings show that current quantum feature maps through the encode–measure–boost pipeline on NISQ hardware do not yet outperform a well-designed classical pipeline.

Muhammad Minoar Hossain, Safiul Haque Chowdhury, Md. Hasibul Hassan Himal et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.