ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023
Benchmarking machine learning approaches to predict radiation-induced toxicities in lung cancer patients.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI in Radiation Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Cureus · 2025Review
- Performance Comparison of 10 State-of-the-Art Machine Learning Algorithms for Outcome Prediction Modeling of Radiation-Induced Toxicity.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Timeliness of Care among Lung Cancer Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- From Linear-quadratic to Machine Learning in Radiobiological Modeling for Radiotherapy Planning: Resolving the Complexity-Utility Paradox with Hybrid Physics-informed Neural Networks.Journal of medical physicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Radiation-induced toxicities are common adverse events in lung cancer (LC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). An accurate prediction of these adverse events might facilitate an informed and shared decision-making process between patient and radiation oncologist with a clearer view of life-balance implications in treatment choices. This work provides a benchmark of machine learning (ML) approaches to predict radiation-induced toxicities in LC patients built upon a real-world health dataset based on a generalizable methodology for their implementation and external validation. Materials and Methods: Ten feature selection (FS) methods were combined with five ML-based classifiers to predict six RT-induced toxicities (acute esophagitis, acute cough, acute dyspnea, acute pneumonitis, chronic dyspnea, and chronic pneumonitis). A real-world health dataset (RWHD) built from 875 consecutive LC patients was used to train and validate the resulting 300 predictive models. Internal and external accuracy was calculated in terms of AUC per clinical endpoint, FS method, and ML-based classifier under analysis. Results: Best performing predictive models obtained per clinical endpoint achieved comparable performances to methods from state-of-the-art at internal validation (AUC ≥ 0.81 in all cases) and at external validation (AUC ≥ 0.73 in 5 out of 6 cases). Conclusion: A benchmark of 300 different ML-based approaches has been tested against a RWHD achieving satisfactory results following a generalizable methodology. The outcomes suggest potential relationships between underrecognized clinical factors and the onset of acute esophagitis or chronic dyspnea, thus demonstrating the potential that ML-based approaches have to generate novel data-driven hypotheses in the field.
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.