Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39717195›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025

Performance Comparison of 10 State-of-the-Art Machine Learning Algorithms for Outcome Prediction Modeling of Radiation-Induced Toxicity.

Ramon M Salazar, Saurabh S Nair, Alexandra O Leone, Ting Xu, Raymond P Mumme, Jack D Duryea, Brian De, Kelsey L Corrigan, Michael K Rooney, Matthew S Ning and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The impact of anal cancer treatment on female sexuality and intimacy: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Multiomic random forest toxicity modeling of radiation esophagitis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

15 authors.

Ramon M SalazarDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Saurabh S NairDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Alexandra O LeoneDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Ting XuRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Raymond P MummeDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Jack D DuryeaDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Brian DeRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kelsey L CorriganRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Michael K RooneyRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Matthew S NingRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Prajnan DasRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Emma B HollidayRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Zhongxing LiaoRadiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Laurence E CourtDepartments of Radiation Physics.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartments of Radiation Physics.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of prominent machine learning algorithms in predicting normal tissue complication probability using clinical data obtained from 2 distinct disease sites and to create a software tool that facilitates the automatic determination of the optimal algorithm to model any given labeled data set. Methods and Materials: We obtained 3 sets of radiation toxicity data (478 patients) from our clinic: gastrointestinal toxicity, radiation pneumonitis, and radiation esophagitis. These data comprised clinicopathological and dosimetric information for patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer and anal squamous cell carcinoma. Each data set was modeled using 11 commonly employed machine learning algorithms (elastic net, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], random forest, random forest regression, support vector machine, extreme gradient boosting, light gradient boosting machine, k-nearest neighbors, neural network, Bayesian-LASSO, and Bayesian neural network) by randomly dividing the data set into a training and test set. The training set was used to create and tune the model, and the test set served to assess it by calculating performance metrics. This process was repeated 100 times by each algorithm for each data set. Figures were generated to visually compare the performance of the algorithms. A graphical user interface was developed to automate this whole process. Results: LASSO achieved the highest area under the precision-recall curve (0.807 ± 0.067) for radiation esophagitis, random forest for gastrointestinal toxicity (0.726 ± 0.096), and the neural network for radiation pneumonitis (0.878 ± 0.060). The area under the curve was 0.754 ± 0.069, 0.889 ± 0.043, and 0.905 ± 0.045, respectively. The graphical user interface was used to compare all algorithms for each data set automatically. When averaging the area under the precision-recall curve across all toxicities, Bayesian-LASSO was the best model. Conclusions: Our results show that there is no best algorithm for all data sets. Therefore, it is important to compare multiple algorithms when training an outcome prediction model on a new data set. The graphical user interface created for this study automatically compares the performance of these 11 algorithms for any data set.

Identifiers

PMID39717195
PMCPMC11665468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.