ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Comparison of Predictive Models for Keloid Recurrence Based on Machine Learning.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the Causal Effects of Blood-Related Phenotypes in Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- A panoramic analysis of keloid pathogenesis: multidimensional network regulation of genetics-immunity-metabolism-mechanical force.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Hypertrophic and Keloid Scar Management: Advances in Diagnosis, Perioperative Care, and Anesthetic Modulation.Cureus · 2025Review
- The Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Predictive Precision in Scar Medicine: From Molecular Predictors to Machine Learning Models.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Review
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
objectivesTo establish, evaluate and compare three recurrence prediction models for keloid patients using machine learning methods.
methodsWe enrolled 301 keloid patients who underwent surgery and postoperative radiotherapy, dividing them into a training set (70%) and a validation set (30%). Three recurrence prediction models were established in the training set: the logistic regression model, the decision tree model, and the random forest model. We then evaluated and compared the performance of these models in the validation set, using metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, recall, precision, kappa coefficient, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC).
resultsWe developed three machine learning-based prediction models for keloid recurrence. KAAS, mean arterial pressure levels, postoperative complications, and the proportion of inflammatory cells played crucial roles in these models. The decision tree model outperformed both the random forest and logistic regression models in terms of accuracy, and it also exhibited the highest overall precision. Regarding AUC, logistic regression performed the best, followed by random forest and decision trees.
conclusionsThis study established three prediction models for keloid recurrence using machine learning techniques, highlighting the significance of KAAS, blood pressure levels, postoperative complications, and inflammatory cell proportions. When compared from various dimensions, the logistic regression model demonstrated the most favorable prognostic performance in terms of AUC.
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.