Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252469›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Predictive Value of Machine Learning for Platinum Chemotherapy Responses in Ovarian Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Qingyi Wang, Zhuo Chang, Xiaofang Liu, Yunrui Wang, Chuwen Feng, Yunlu Ping, Xiaoling Feng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Use of Radiomics in Characterizing Tumor Hypoxia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qingyi WangDepartment of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1133-5047
Zhuo ChangBasic Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1817-4530
Xiaofang LiuDepartment of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9784-8179
Yunrui WangDepartment of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0009-0005-0079-831X
Chuwen FengDepartment of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1632-6588
Yunlu PingDepartment of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1389-2389
Xiaoling FengDepartment of Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8724-8855
Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning is a potentially effective method for predicting the response to platinum-based treatment for ovarian cancer. However, the predictive performance of various machine learning methods and variables is still a matter of controversy and debate.

objectiveThis study aims to systematically review relevant literature on the predictive value of machine learning for platinum-based chemotherapy responses in patients with ovarian cancer.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies on predictive models for platinum-based therapies for the treatment of ovarian cancer published before April 26, 2023. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included articles. Concordance index (C-index), sensitivity, and specificity were used to evaluate the performance of the prediction models to investigate the predictive value of machine learning for platinum chemotherapy responses in patients with ovarian cancer.

resultsA total of 1749 articles were examined, and 19 of them involving 39 models were eligible for this study. The most commonly used modeling methods were logistic regression (16/39, 41%), Extreme Gradient Boosting (4/39, 10%), and support vector machine (4/39, 10%). The training cohort reported C-index in 39 predictive models, with a pooled value of 0.806; the validation cohort reported C-index in 12 predictive models, with a pooled value of 0.831. Support vector machine performed well in both the training and validation cohorts, with a C-index of 0.942 and 0.879, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 0.890, and the pooled specificity was 0.790 in the training cohort.

conclusionsMachine learning can effectively predict how patients with ovarian cancer respond to platinum-based chemotherapy and may provide a reference for the development or updating of subsequent scoring systems.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMachine LearningPubMedSupport Vector Machinemachine learningovarian cancerplatinum-based therapyplatinum chemotherapy responsepredictive potential

Identifiers

PMID38252469
PMCPMC10845031
OpenAlexW4391101136

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.