ArticleDigital health
Use machine learning to predict bone metastasis of esophageal cancer: A population-based study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- AI in esophageal cancer: advances, barriers to clinical translation, and perspectives for digital health.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to develop a machine learning (ML)-based predictive model for bone metastasis (BM) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. Methods: This study utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database spanning 2010 to 2020 to analyze EC patients. A total of 21,032 confirmed cases of EC were included in the study. Through univariate and multivariate logistic regression (LR) analysis, 10 indicators associated with the risk of BM were identified. These factors were incorporated into seven different ML classifiers to establish predictive models. The performance of these models was assessed and compared using various metrics including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-score, precision, and decision curve analysis. Results: Factors such as age, gender, histological type, T stage, N stage, surgical intervention, chemotherapy, and the presence of brain, lung, and liver metastases were identified as independent risk factors for BM in EC patients. Among the seven models developed, the ML model based on LR algorithm demonstrated excellent performance in the internal validation set. The AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of this model were 0.831, 0.721, 0.787, and 0.717, respectively. Conclusion: We have successfully developed an online calculator utilizing a LR model to assist clinicians in accurately assessing the risk of BM in patients with EC. This tool demonstrates high accuracy and specificity, thereby enhancing the development of personalized treatment plans.
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.