ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Explainable Machine Learning Models for Colorectal Cancer Prediction Using Clinical Laboratory Data.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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.
- Review
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Peripheral Blood Biomarkers for Esophageal Cancer Risk Prediction.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Gut Microbiota in Colorectal Cancer Pathogenesis: A Comprehensive Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Histopathological Classification in Colorectal Polyps.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- A Novel Ensemble Framework for Comprehensive Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment: Integration of Gastroenterology-Specific Transformer Language Models and Multiple Decision Trees.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionEarly diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant clinical challenge. This study aims to develop machine learning (ML) models for CRC risk prediction using clinical laboratory data.MethodsThis retrospective, single-center study analyzed laboratory examination data from healthy controls (HC), polyp patients (Polyp), and CRC patients between 2013 and 2023. Five ML algorithms, including adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), decision tree (DT), logistic regression (LR), and random forest (RF), were employed to classify subjects into HC vs Polyp vs CRC, HC vs CRC, and Polyp vs CRC, respectively.ResultsThis study included 31 539 subjects: 11 793 HCs, 10 125 polyp patients, and 9621 CRC patients. The XGBoost model achieved the highest AUCs of 0.966 for differentiating HC from CRC and 0.881 for Polyp from CRC, outperforming carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) tests. This model could also identify CEA-negative or FOBT-negative CRC patients. Incorporating stool miR-92a detection into the model further improved diagnostic performance. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) plots indicated that FOBT, CEA, lymphocyte percentage (LYMPH%), and hematocrit (HCT) were the most significant features contributing to CRC diagnosis. Additionally, a computational tool for predicting CRC risk based on the optimal model was developed, designed for researchers with programming experience.ConclusionFive ML models for CRC diagnosis, based on ten routine laboratory test items, were developed, achieving higher diagnostic accuracies than traditional CRC biomarkers. The diagnostic capabilities of these ML models can be further enhanced by including stool miR-92a levels.
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.