ArticleScientific reports2025
Cervical cancer prediction using machine learning models based on routine blood analysis.
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 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.
- Development and interpretability of an XGBoost model to predict high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Recent advancements in the application of artificial intelligence-based approaches for screening, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
- Gallstone Classification Using Random Forest Optimized by Sand Cat Swarm Optimization Algorithm with SHAP and DiCE-Based Interpretability.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Gynecological Cancers: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of clinical outcomes in cervical cancer using routine hematological indices: development and web implementation.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common cancer among women globally. The key to preventing and treating CC is early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. This study aimed to develop an interpretable model for predicting CC risk using routine blood data. The primary endpoint variable is the occurrence of CC, as confirmed by histopathological diagnosis. We used the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) method to provide interpretabiligy and identify key factors associated with CC. In this restrospective study, medical records of patients from 2013 to 2023 were collected. A total of 2,503 patients diagnosed with CC were included in the case group, while the control group was composed of 3,794 patients without apparent signs of the disease, which included women with other gynecological conditions as well as healthy individuals undergoing routine check-ups. Age, clinical diagnosis information and 22 blood cell analysis results were considered. Four different algorithms were applied to construct a model for estimating the likelihood of CC occurrence. Using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and the random forest method (RF) method, 15 key routine blood features were ultimtely selected from an initial set of 23 features for model training. These features include age, red blood cell count (RBC), platelet distribution width (PDW), white blood cell count (WBC), Lymphocyte Percentage (LYMPH%), basophil count (BASO), Basophil Percentage (BASO%), Lymphocyte Absolute Value (LYMPH), Neutrophil Percentage (NEUT%), Hemoglobin (HGB), Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC), Red Cell Distribution Width (R-CV), Mean Platelet Volume (MPV), Plateletcrit (PCT), and Among the four models, the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model achieved the highest predictive performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.964. In contrast, the RF model exhibited the poorest generalization ability, with an AUC of 0.907. The SHAP method revealed the top 6 predictors of CC according to the importance ranking, and the average platelet distribution width (PDW) was recognized as the most important predictor variable for CC occurrence (the primary endpoint variable).
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.