Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001093›Full record

ArticlePrecision chemistry2025

Machine-Learning-Assisted Analysis of Patient Clinical Biomarkers to Improve Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis.

Célia Sahli, Tiffany Thanhtruc Pham, Kenry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Precision chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Célia SahliDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, United States.
Tiffany Thanhtruc PhamDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, United States.
KenryDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0405-1369

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unavailability of accurate and reliable methods for early ovarian cancer detection represents a major gap in ovarian cancer diagnosis and management. The emergence and recent integration of machine learning with cancer diagnostic techniques, particularly biomarker-based blood tests, have the potential to improve the selectivity and sensitivity of ovarian cancer detection substantially. Herein, we leverage a series of machine learning and statistical approaches to analyze clinically relevant data sets of more than 300 patients with ovarian tumors and 47 blood-obtained features to distinguish between cancerous and benign tumors. We found that HE4, CA125, menopausal status, and age were some of the most important features distinguishing cancerous from benign ovarian tumors in all patient populations. Age was noted to be a critical feature with cancer discriminatory power only in premenopausal patients but less so in postmenopausal patients. Systematic consideration of patient menopausal status, types of machine learning algorithms, and number of clinical features is necessary prior to ovarian cancer screening to yield more accurate and reliable diagnostic results. Overall, this study provides deeper insight into the use of machine learning, feature selection, and other relevant quantitative approaches to advance ovarian cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

clinical biomarkersmachine learningmenopauseovarian cancerprecision diagnostics.

Identifiers

PMID41001093
PMCPMC12458010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.