ArticleMedical physics2018
Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo)radiotherapy: An empirical comparison of classifiers.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05151718 (Ependymomics), which is not on this map. Cited by 163 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Ependymomics: Multiomic Approach to Radioresistance of Ependymomas in Children and Adolescents
Who cites it
163 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 299 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models for radiation-induced complications after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning for predicting post-operative outcomes in meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Pooled it
- Joint EANM/SNMMI guideline on radiomics in nuclear medicine : Jointly supported by the EANM Physics Committee and the SNMMI Physics, Instrumentation and Data Sciences Council.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Guideline
- Gut Microbiota Characteristics of People with Obesity by Meta-Analysis of Existing Datasets.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Identification of Key Genes Involved in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with Diabetes Mellitus Based on Gene Expression Profiling Analysis.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2021Pooled it
- A six‑gene support vector machine classifier contributes to the diagnosis of pediatric septic shock.Molecular medicine reports · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Privacy-Preserving Distributed Machine Learning From Federated Databases in Health Care.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Novel method for risk stratification of radiation-induced breast fibrosis: subgroup hypothesis verified by machine learning.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Article
- Microbial Signatures in Head and Neck versus Gastrointestinal Tumors: Identification and Prognostic Modeling.Polish journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Creation of an mHealth Infrastructure to Support the Development and Delivery of mHealth Interventions: Protocol for Demonstration Projects Addressing Smoking Cessation in Cancer Care.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Support for Monitor Unit and Lung Shielding Estimation in Conventional Total Body Irradiation.Cancers · 2026Article
- Fecal microbiome of patients with ulcerative colitis reflects their phenotype and inflammatory level.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Uncovering the Key Circuit FOSL2/FOS/EGR3/EGR1, Contributing to the Hyperexcitability of Excitatory Neurons in the Epileptic Temporal Cortex and Hippocampus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Identification of COL5A1 and TGFBI as key basement membrane genes and their molecular mechanisms in gestational diabetes mellitus.Medicine · 2026Article
- IMMT downregulation promotes osteoarthritis development by inducing mitochondrial dysfunction.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- From algorithm to verification: based on network toxicology and machine learning, the immunomodulatory role of IGFBP1/MKI67/C9 in perfluorooctanoic acid-induced osteoarthritis was discovered, and a diagnostic model was constructed.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Omics-enhanced nanomedicine: integrating multi-omics for precision cancer diagnosis and therapy.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- FAR1 as a ferroptosis-related biomarker and potential therapeutic target in acute kidney injury: integrated bioinformatics and experimental validation.Renal failure · 2025Article
103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
23 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMachine learning classification algorithms (classifiers) for prediction of treatment response are becoming more popular in radiotherapy literature. General Machine learning literature provides evidence in favor of some classifier families (random forest, support vector machine, gradient boosting) in terms of classification performance. The purpose of this study is to compare such classifiers specifically for (chemo)radiotherapy datasets and to estimate their average discriminative performance for radiation treatment outcome prediction.
methodsWe collected 12 datasets (3496 patients) from prior studies on post-(chemo)radiotherapy toxicity, survival, or tumor control with clinical, dosimetric, or blood biomarker features from multiple institutions and for different tumor sites, that is, (non-)small-cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, and meningioma. Six common classification algorithms with built-in feature selection (decision tree, random forest, neural network, support vector machine, elastic net logistic regression, LogitBoost) were applied on each dataset using the popular open-source R package caret. The R code and documentation for the analysis are available online (https://github.com/timodeist/classifier_selection_code). All classifiers were run on each dataset in a 100-repeated nested fivefold cross-validation with hyperparameter tuning. Performance metrics (AUC, calibration slope and intercept, accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and Brier score) were computed. We ranked classifiers by AUC to determine which classifier is likely to also perform well in future studies. We simulated the benefit for potential investigators to select a certain classifier for a new dataset based on our study (pre-selection based on other datasets) or estimating the best classifier for a dataset (set-specific selection based on information from the new dataset) compared with uninformed classifier selection (random selection).
resultsRandom forest (best in 6/12 datasets) and elastic net logistic regression (best in 4/12 datasets) showed the overall best discrimination, but there was no single best classifier across datasets. Both classifiers had a median AUC rank of 2. Preselection and set-specific selection yielded a significant average AUC improvement of 0.02 and 0.02 over random selection with an average AUC rank improvement of 0.42 and 0.66, respectively.
conclusionRandom forest and elastic net logistic regression yield higher discriminative performance in (chemo)radiotherapy outcome and toxicity prediction than other studied classifiers. Thus, one of these two classifiers should be the first choice for investigators when building classification models or to benchmark one's own modeling results against. Our results also show that an informed preselection of classifiers based on existing datasets can improve discrimination over random selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.