ArticleScientific reports2025
Incorporation of explainable artificial intelligence in ensemble machine learning-driven pancreatic cancer diagnosis.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Image-based artificial intelligence for preoperative differentiation of pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Multimodal AI for early prediction of adverse clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Machine learning model for predicting malnutrition risk in lung cancer patients after thoracoscopic resection: a multi-center study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer prediction: from transparency to clinical decision-making.Frontiers in oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the strides made in medical science, pancreatic cancer continues to be a threat, highlighting the urgent need for creative strategies to address this concern. Recently, a potential approach that has attracted significant attention is using machine learning in clinical decision-making. This research aims to analyze six machine learning algorithms, and an ensemble voting classifier, develop hybrid models for the early detection of pancreatic cancer based on several clinical characteristics and interpret their performance with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). A publicly available dataset composed of 590 patient urine samples was utilized to develop six conventional models for the classification of cancerous from non-cancerous pancreatic cases through the analysis of specific attributes. An ensemble voting classifier was developed from the best-performed single models, which were later hybridized to form six novel hybrid models. The ensemble voting classifier outperformed all stand-alone models with an accuracy of 96.61% and a precision of 98.72%. The six novel hybrid models exhibited higher performance than single models with voting classifier random forest hybridized model outperforming others with an AUC of 99.05% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.00) and an interpretation was given by SHAP showing top influential features in pancreatic cancer diagnosis that exhibited the greatest positive SHAP values. Employing rapid sophisticated models with high accuracy and precision holds significant promise in facilitating the effective detection of various diseases, including pancreatic cancer.
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.