ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024
Identification of cachexia in lung cancer patients with an ensemble learning approach.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Nutritional intervention prior to the occurrence of cachexia will significantly improve the survival rate of lung cancer patients. This study aimed to establish an ensemble learning model based on anthropometry and blood indicators without information on body weight loss to identify the risk factors of cachexia for early administration of nutritional support and for preventing the occurrence of cachexia in lung cancer patients. Methods: This multicenter study included 4,712 lung cancer patients. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method was used to obtain the key indexes. The characteristics excluded weight loss information, and the study data were randomly divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%). The training set was used to select the optimal model among 18 models and verify the model performance. A total of 18 machine learning models were evaluated to predict the occurrence of cachexia, and their performance was determined using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Results: Among 4,712 patients, 1,392 (29.5%) patients were diagnosed with cachexia based on the framework of Fearon et al. A 17-variable gradient boosting classifier (GBC) model including body mass index (BMI), feeding situation, tumor stage, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and some gastrointestinal symptoms was selected among the 18 machine learning models. The GBC model showed good performance in predicting cachexia in the training set (AUC = 0.854, accuracy = 0.819, precision = 0.771, recall = 0.574, F1 score = 0.658, MCC = 0.549, and kappa = 0.538). The abovementioned indicator values were also confirmed in the test set (AUC = 0.859, accuracy = 0.818, precision = 0.801, recall = 0.550, F1 score = 0.652, and MCC = 0.552, and kappa = 0.535). The learning curve, decision boundary, precision recall (PR) curve, the receiver operating curve (ROC), the classification report, and the confusion matrix in the test sets demonstrated good performance. The feature importance diagram showed the contribution of each feature to the model. Conclusions: The GBC model established in this study could facilitate the identification of cancer cachexia in lung cancer patients without weight loss information, which would guide early implementation of nutritional interventions to decrease the occurrence of cachexia and improve the overall survival (OS).
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.