ArticlePloS one2022
Uncovering nasopharyngeal carcinoma from chronic rhinosinusitis and healthy subjects using routine medical tests via machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is one of the most common types of cancers in South China and Southeast Asia. Clinical data has shown that early detection is essential for improving treatment effectiveness and survival rate. Unfortunately, because the early symptoms of NPC are rather minor and similar to that of diseases such as Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS), early detection is a challenge. This paper proposes using machine learning methods to detect NPC using routine medical test data, namely Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), k-Nearest-Neighbor (KNN) and Logistic Regression (LR). We collected a dataset containing 523 newly diagnosed NPC patients before treatment, 501 newly diagnosed CRS patients before treatment as well as 600 healthy controls. The routine medical test data including age, gender, blood test features, liver function test features, and urine sediment test features. For comparison, we also used data from Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) antibody tests, which is a specialized test not included among routine medical tests. In our first test, all four methods were tested on classifying NPC vs CRS vs controls; RF gives the best overall performance. Using only routine medical test data, it gives an accuracy of 83.1%, outperforming LR by 12%. In our second test, using only routine medical test data, when classifying NPC vs non-NPC (i.e. CRS or controls), RF achieves an accuracy of 88.2%. In our third test, when classifying NPC vs. controls, RF using only routine test data achieves an accuracy significantly better than RF using only EBV antibody data. Finally, in our last test, RF trained with NPC vs controls, using routine test data only, continued to perform well on an entirely separate dataset. This is a promising result because preliminary NPC detection using routine medical data is easy and inexpensive to implement. We believe this approach will play an important role in the detection and treatment of NPC in the future.
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.