ArticleTranslational cancer research2025
Construction and validation of machine learning models for predicting lymph node metastasis in cutaneous malignant melanoma: a large population-based study.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A development and validation of predictive model based on novel immune-related gene-based subtypes for the risk assessment of cutaneous melanoma.Translational cancer research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymph node status is essential for determining the prognosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model for predicting lymph node metastases (LNM) in CMM. Methods: We gathered data on 6,196 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, including known clinicopathologic variables, using six ML algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), Complement Naive Bayes (CNB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), RandomForest (RF), and k-nearest neighbor algorithm (kNN), to predict the presence of LNM in CMM. Subsequently, we established prediction models. The utilization of the adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) method served to address the challenge posed by imbalanced data. We assessed prediction model performance in terms of average precision (AP), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1 score, precision-recall curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Furthermore, employing SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analysis resulted in the creation of visualized explanations tailored to individual patients. Results: Among the 6,196 CMM cases, 19.9% (n=1,234) presented with LNM. The XGBoost model showed the best predictive performance when compared with the other algorithms (AP of 0.805). XGBoost showed that age and Breslow thickness were the two most important factors related to LNM. Conclusions: The XGBoost model predicted LNM of CMM with a high level of precision. We hope that this model could assist surgeons in accurately evaluating surgical approaches and determining the extent of surgery, while also guiding the subsequent adjuvant therapies, thereby improving the prognosis of patients.
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.