ArticleBiology2025
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Ovarian Cancer: Biomarker Contributions in Ensemble Models.
Article in Biology, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in ovarian pathophysiology and management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Pooled it
- Unveiling Key Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Risk in Psoriasis Through Explainable Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2026Article
- Prognostic inflammatory-immune score-based risk stratification optimizes adjuvant therapy for non-gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a multicenter study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Explainable deep learning approaches and clinical insights for cancer biomarker identification.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ovarian cancer's high mortality is primarily due to late-stage diagnosis, underscoring the critical need for improved early detection tools. This study develops and validates explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) models to discriminate malignant from benign ovarian masses using readily available demographic and laboratory data. A dataset of 309 patients (140 malignant, 169 benign) with 47 clinical parameters was analyzed. The Boruta algorithm selected 19 significant features, including tumor markers (CA125, HE4, CEA, CA19-9, AFP), hematological indices, liver function tests, and electrolytes. Five ensemble machine learning algorithms were optimized and evaluated using repeated stratified 5-fold cross-validation. The Gradient Boosting model achieved the highest performance with 88.99% (±3.2%) accuracy, 0.934 AUC-ROC, and 0.782 Matthews correlation coefficient. SHAP analysis identified HE4, CEA, globulin, CA125, and age as the most globally important features. Unlike black-box approaches, our XAI framework provides clinically interpretable decision pathways through LIME and SHAP visualizations, revealing how feature values push predictions toward malignancy or benignity. Partial dependence plots illustrated non-linear risk relationships, such as a sharp increase in malignancy probability with CA125 > 35 U/mL. This explainable approach demonstrates that ensemble models can achieve high diagnostic accuracy using routine lab data alone, performing comparably to established clinical indices while ensuring transparency and clinical plausibility. The integration of state-of-the-art XAI techniques highlights established biomarkers and reveals potential novel contributors like inflammatory and hepatic indices, offering a pragmatic, scalable triage tool to augment existing diagnostic pathways, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
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.