Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37777809›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2023

Development and testing of a random forest-based machine learning model for predicting events among breast cancer patients with a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Yudi Jin, Ailin Lan, Yuran Dai, Linshan Jiang, Shengchun Liu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Current issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. An explainable machine learning model predicts pediatric varicella encephalitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yudi JinDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Ailin LanDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Yuran DaiDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Linshan JiangDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Shengchun LiuDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. liushengchun1968@163.com.

Funding

the First-class Discipline Construction Project of Clinical Medicine in the First Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University 472020320220007the Key Research and Development Project of Chongqing's Technology Innovation and Application Development Special Big Health Field CSTC2021jscx-gksb-N0027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer (BC) is the most common malignant tumor around the world. Timely detection of the tumor progression after treatment could improve the survival outcome of patients. This study aimed to develop machine learning models to predict events (defined as either (1) the first tumor relapse locally, regionally, or distantly; (2) a diagnosis of secondary malignant tumor; or (3) death because of any reason.) in BC patients post-treatment.

methodsThe patients with the response of stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were selected. The clinicopathological features and the survival data were recorded in 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Patients were randomly divided into the training set and test set in the ratio of 8:2. A random forest (RF) and a logistic regression were established in both of 1-year cohort and the 5-year cohort. The performance was compared between the two models. The models were validated using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

resultsA total of 315 patients were included. In the 1-year cohort, 197 patients were divided into a training set while 87 were into a test set. The specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.800, 0.833, and 0.810 in the RF model. And 0.520, 0.833, and 0.653 of the logistic regression. In the 5-year cohort, 132 patients were divided into the training set while 33 were into the test set. The specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.882, 0.750, and 0.829 in the RF model. And 0.882, 0.688, and 0.752 of the logistic regression. In the external validation set, of the RF model, the specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.765, 0.812, and 0.779. Of the logistics regression model, the specificity, sensitivity, and AUC were 0.833, 0.376, and 0.619.

conclusionThe RF model has a good performance in predicting events among BC patients with SD and PD post-NAC. It may be beneficial to BC patients, assisting in detecting tumor recurrence.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningNeoadjuvant TherapyRandom ForestBreast cancerEventLogistic regressionMachine learningRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID37777809
PMCPMC10543332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.