ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Determining risk and predictors of head and neck cancer treatment-related lymphedema: A clinicopathologic and dosimetric data mining approach using interpretable machine learning and ensemble feature selection.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and internal validation of a risk prediction model for ipsilateral upper-limb lymphedema following breast cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Technology-enhanced compression and AI-integrated lymphedema care: a narrative review.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Review
- Radiation therapy response prediction for head and neck cancer using multimodal imaging and multiview dynamic graph autoencoder feature selection.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Feature level quantitative ultrasound and CT information fusion to predict the outcome of head & neck cancer radiotherapy treatment: Enhanced principal component analysis.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics-Based Model for Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Cervical Cancer.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Prediction Models of Microinvasive Cervical Cancer in High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Treatment by Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Clinical, Pathologic, and Dosimetric Predictors of Head and Neck Lymphedema Following Definitive or Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Integrative prediction model for radiation pneumonitis incorporating genetic and clinical-pathological factors using machine learning.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Non-Invasive Cancer Detection Using Blood Test and Predictive Modeling Approach.Advances and applications in bioinformatics and chemistry : AABC · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: The ability to determine the risk and predictors of lymphedema is vital in improving the quality of life for head and neck (HN) cancer patients. However, selecting robust features is challenging due to the multicollinearity and high dimensionality of radiotherapy (RT) data. This study aims to overcome these challenges using an ensemble feature selection technique with machine learning (ML). Materials and methods: Thirty organs-at-risk, including bilateral cervical lymph node levels, were contoured, and dose-volume data were extracted from 76 HN treatment plans. Clinicopathologic data was collected. Ensemble feature selection was used to reduce the number of features. Using the reduced features as input to ML and competing risk models, internal and external lymphedema prediction capability was evaluated with the ML models, and time to lymphedema event and risk stratification were estimated using the risk models. Results: Two ML models, XGBoost and random forest, exhibited robust prediction performance. They achieved average F1-scores and AUCs of 84 ± 3.3 % and 79 ± 11.9 % (external lymphedema), and 64 ± 12 % and 78 ± 7.9 % (internal lymphedema). Predictive ML and risk models identified common predictors, including bulky node involvement, high dose to various lymph node levels, and lymph nodes removed during surgery. At 180 days, removing 0-25, 26-50, and > 50 lymph nodes increased external lymphedema risk to 72.1 %, 95.6 %, and 57.7 % respectively (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our approach, involving the reduction of HN RT data dimensionality, resulted in effective ML models for HN lymphedema prediction. Predictive dosimetric features emerged from both predictive and competing risk models. Consistency with clinicopathologic features from other studies supports our methodology.
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.