ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting the efficacy of bevacizumab on peritumoral edema based on imaging features and machine learning.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathological changes and aquaporin-4 expression after bevacizumab treatment of traumatic penumbra in the rat brain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bevacizumab in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Correlation between MGMT methylation and the efficacy of bevacizumab in high-grade glioma.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study proposes a novel approach to predict the efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV) in treating peritumoral edema in metastatic brain tumor patients by integrating advanced machine learning (ML) techniques with comprehensive imaging and clinical data. A retrospective analysis was performed on 300 patients who received BEV treatment from September 2013 to January 2024. The dataset incorporated 13 predictive features: 8 clinical variables and 5 radiological variables. The dataset was divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%) using stratified sampling. Data preprocessing was carried out through methods such as handling missing values with the MICE method, detecting and adjusting outliers, and feature scaling. Four algorithms, namely Random Forest (RF), Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting Tree, and Naive Bayes, were selected to construct binary classification models. A tenfold cross-validation strategy was implemented during training, and techniques like regularization, hyperparameter optimization, and oversampling were used to mitigate overfitting. The RF model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.89, a precision of 0.94, F1-score of 0.92, with both AUC-ROC and AUC-PR values reaching 0.91. Feature importance analysis consistently identified edema volume as the most significant predictor, followed by edema index, patient age, and tumor volume. Traditional multivariate logistic regression corroborated these findings, confirming that edema volume and edema index were independent predictors (p < 0.01). Our results highlight the potential of ML-driven predictive models in optimizing BEV treatment selection, reducing unnecessary treatment risks, and improving clinical decision-making in neuro-oncology.
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.