ArticleCancer medicine2024
An explainable machine learning model to solid adnexal masses diagnosis based on clinical data and qualitative ultrasound indicators.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based model for diagnosing benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal masses.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Accurate Information and Tasks in Gynecologic Oncology and Clinical Medicine-Dunning-Kruger Effects and Ultracrepidarianism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predicting the risk of postoperative avascular necrosis in patients with talar fractures based on an interpretable machine learning model.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Explainable AI-based feature importance analysis for ovarian cancer classification with ensemble methods.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nutrition-integrated nomogram for predicting 28-day mortality in sepsis patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a deep learning pipeline to diagnose ovarian masses using ultrasound screening: a retrospective multicenter study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- An explainable machine learning model to solid adnexal masses diagnosis based on clinical data and qualitative ultrasound indicators.Cancer medicine · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate characterization of newly diagnosed a solid adnexal lesion is a key step in defining the most appropriate therapeutic approach. Despite guidance from the International Ovarian Tumor Analyzes Panel, the evaluation of these lesions can be challenging. Recent studies have demonstrated how machine learning techniques can be applied to clinical data to solve this diagnostic problem. However, ML models can often consider as black-boxes due to the difficulty of understanding the decision-making process used by the algorithm to obtain a specific result.
aimsFor this purpose, we propose an Explainable Artificial Intelligence model trained on clinical characteristics and qualitative ultrasound indicators to predict solid adnexal masses diagnosis. MATERIALS &
methodsSince the diagnostic task was a three-class problem (benign tumor, invasive cancer, or ovarian metastasis), we proposed a waterfall classification model: a first model was trained and validated to discriminate benign versus malignant, a second model was trained to distinguish nonmetastatic versus metastatic malignant lesion which occurs when a patient is predicted to be malignant by the first model. Firstly, a stepwise feature selection procedure was implemented. The classification performances were validated on Leave One Out scheme.
resultsThe accuracy of the three-class model reaches an overall accuracy of 86.36%, and the precision per-class of the benign, nonmetastatic malignant, and metastatic malignant classes were 86.96%, 87.27%, and 77.78%, respectively. DISCUSSION: SHapley Additive exPlanations were performed to visually show how the machine learning model made a specific decision. For each patient, the SHAP values expressed how each characteristic contributed to the classification result. Such information represents an added value for the clinical usability of a diagnostic system.
conclusionsThis is the first work that attempts to design an explainable machine-learning tool for the histological diagnosis of solid masses of the ovary.
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.