ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative performance of multiple ensemble learning models for preoperative prediction of tumor deposits in rectal cancer based on MR imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A novel multimodal AI-based radiomics approach for precision assessment of pain intensity in chronic nonspecific low back pain.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- MRI-based habitat, intra-, and peritumoral machine learning model for perineural invasion prediction in rectal cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence and ensemble learning for hepatocellular carcinoma classification: State of the art, performance, and clinical implications.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of algorithmic approaches in ensemble learning: bagging vs. boosting.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Factors affecting survival prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensemble learning can effectively mitigate the risk of model overfitting during training. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ensemble learning models in predicting tumor deposits in rectal cancer (RC) and identify the optimal model for preoperative clinical decision-making. A total of 199 RC patients were analyzed, with radiomic features extracted from T2-weighted and apparent diffusion coefficient images and selected through advanced statistical methods. After that, the bagging-ensemble learning model (random forest), boosting-ensemble learning model (XGBoost, AdaBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost), and voting-ensemble learning model (integrating 5 classifiers) were applied and optimized using grid search with tenfold cross-validation. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, calibration curve, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE), and decision curve analysis were adopted to evaluate the performance of each model. The voting-ensemble learning model (VELM) performs best in the testing cohort, with an AUC of 0.875 and an accuracy of 0.800. Notably, Calibration plots confirmed VELM's stability and t-SNE visualization illustrated clear clustering of radiomic features. Decision curve analysis further validated the VELM's superior net benefit across a range of clinical thresholds, underscoring its potential as a reliable tool for clinical decision-making in RC.
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.