ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Applying machine learning techniques to predict the risk of lung metastases from rectal cancer: a real-world retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Brain Metastasis at Initial Diagnosis in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Model Development and SHAP Interpretation Study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- XGBoost-based model for predicting five-year survival in gastric cancer using clinical indicators.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Explainable machine learning for predicting lung metastasis of colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Complete blood counts as potential risk factors of early dissemination to liver and lungs in resected colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Implementation of a Machine Learning Approach Evaluating Risk Factors for Complications after Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metastasis in the lungs is common in patients with rectal cancer, and it can have severe consequences on their survival and quality of life. Therefore, it is essential to identify patients who may be at risk of developing lung metastasis from rectal cancer. Methods: In this study, we utilized eight machine-learning methods to create a model for predicting the risk of lung metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Our cohort consisted of 27,180 rectal cancer patients selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2017 for model development. Additionally, we validated our models using 1118 rectal cancer patients from a Chinese hospital to evaluate model performance and generalizability. We assessed our models' performance using various metrics, including the area under the curve (AUC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR), the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves. Finally, we applied the best model to develop a web-based calculator for predicting the risk of lung metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Result: Our study employed tenfold cross-validation to assess the performance of eight machine-learning models for predicting the risk of lung metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. The AUC values ranged from 0.73 to 0.96 in the training set, with the extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model achieving the highest AUC value of 0.96. Moreover, the XGB model obtained the best AUPR and MCC in the training set, reaching 0.98 and 0.88, respectively. We found that the XGB model demonstrated the best predictive power, achieving an AUC of 0.87, an AUPR of 0.60, an accuracy of 0.92, and a sensitivity of 0.93 in the internal test set. Furthermore, the XGB model was evaluated in the external test set and achieved an AUC of 0.91, an AUPR of 0.63, an accuracy of 0.93, a sensitivity of 0.92, and a specificity of 0.93. The XGB model obtained the highest MCC in the internal test set and external validation set, with 0.61 and 0.68, respectively. Based on the DCA and calibration curve analysis, the XGB model had better clinical decision-making ability and predictive power than the other seven models. Lastly, we developed an online web calculator using the XGB model to assist doctors in making informed decisions and to facilitate the model's wider adoption (https://share.streamlit.io/woshiwz/rectal_cancer/main/lung.py). Conclusion: In this study, we developed an XGB model based on clinicopathological information to predict the risk of lung metastasis in patients with rectal cancer, which may help physicians make clinical decisions.
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.