ArticlePloS one2024
A machine learning approach in a monocentric cohort for predicting primary refractory disease in Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma patients.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Risk Stratification in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review of Classification Models and Predictive Performances.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting Primary Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Comparison of Machine Learning Models with the IPI Score.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A deep learning framework for lesion-level treatment response prediction in hodgkin lymphoma using PET/CT tensor radiomics.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.British journal of haematology · 2026Review
- Mortality Prediction in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Using Supervised Machine Learning Models-A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Computational modelling of aggressive B-cell lymphoma.Biochemical Society transactions · 2025Review
- Predicting the risk of relapsed or refractory in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma via deep learning.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrimary refractory disease affects 30-40% of patients diagnosed with DLBCL and is a significant challenge in disease management due to its poor prognosis. Predicting refractory status could greatly inform treatment strategies, enabling early intervention. Various options are now available based on patient and disease characteristics. Supervised machine-learning techniques, which can predict outcomes in a medical context, appear highly suitable for this purpose.
designRetrospective monocentric cohort study. PATIENT POPULATION: Adult patients with a first diagnosis of DLBCL admitted to the hematology unit from 2017 to 2022.
aimWe evaluated in our Center five supervised machine-learning (ML) models as a tool for the prediction of primary refractory DLBCL. MAIN
resultsOne hundred and thirty patients with Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included in this study between January 2017 and December 2022. The variables used for analysis included demographic characteristics, clinical condition, disease characteristics, first-line therapy and PET-CT scan realization after 2 cycles of treatment. We compared five supervised ML models: support vector machine (SVM), Random Forest Classifier (RFC), Logistic Regression (LR), Naïve Bayes (NB) Categorical classifier and eXtreme Gradient Boost (XGboost), to predict primary refractory disease. The performance of these models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), accuracy, false positive rate, sensitivity, and F1-score to identify the best model. After a median follow-up of 19.5 months, the overall survival rate was 60% in the cohort. The Overall Survival at 3 years was 58.5% (95%CI, 51-68.5) and the 3-years Progression Free Survival was 63% (95%CI, 54-71) using Kaplan-Meier method. Of the 124 patients who received a first line treatment, primary refractory disease occurred in 42 patients (33.8%) and 2 patients (1.6%) experienced relapse within 6 months. The univariate analysis on refractory disease status shows age (p = 0.009), Ann Arbor stage (p = 0.013), CMV infection (p = 0.012), comorbidity (p = 0.019), IPI score (p<0.001), first line of treatment (p<0.001), EBV infection (p = 0.008) and socio-economics status (p = 0.02) as influencing factors. The NB Categorical classifier emerged as the top-performing model, boasting a ROC-AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.64-0.96), an accuracy of 83%, a F1-score of 0.82, and a low false positive rate at 10% on the validation set. The eXtreme Gradient Boost (XGboost) model and the Random Forest Classifier (RFC) followed with a ROC-AUC of 0.74 (95%CI, 0.52-0.93) and 0.67 (95%CI, 0.46-0.88) respectively, an accuracy of 78% and 72% respectively, a F1-score of 0.75 and 0.67 respectively, and a false positive rate of 10% for both. The other two models performed worse with ROC-AUC of 0.65 (95%CI, 0.40-0.87) and 0.45 (95%CI, 0.29-0.64) for SVM and LR respectively, an accuracy of 67% and 50% respectively, a f1-score of 0.64 and 0.43 respectively, and a false positive rate of 28% and 37% respectively.
conclusionMachine learning algorithms, particularly the NB Categorical classifier, have the potential to improve the prediction of primary refractory disease in DLBCL patients, thereby providing a novel decision-making tool for managing this condition. To validate these results on a broader scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm the results in larger cohorts.
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.