ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Machine learning-based prediction of clinical outcomes in cervical cancer using routine hematological indices: development and web implementation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer prognosis critically depends on tumor invasiveness, yet existing predictive tools lack accessibility and generalizability. We aimed to develop predictive models using comprehensive hematological profiling of routine tests to assess invasiveness and survival, improving clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 512 cervical cancer patients who underwent radical surgery. A panel of hematological indices was evaluated, including inflammatory markers, coagulation parameters, and metabolic indicators. Machine learning (ML) algorithms innovatively integrated with traditional regression were employed for feature selection and model development. Models were internally validated by bootstrap methods for discrimination (AUC/C-index) and calibration. Clinical utility was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA). Web-based Shiny applications of these models were deployed. Results: Using routine hematological indices selected from ML-based methods, we identified the optimal variable set for each clinical outcome prediction model based on C-index comparisons. The multivariable analyses of these variables identified hematological parameters associated with cervical cancer progression and prognosis. TG, HGB, Eosinophil count, TCLR, and NAR acted as protective factors, while LDL, WBC, FAR, DDI, FLR, ENLR, SII and platelet count were risk factors linked to advanced disease features. In addition, Tbil and DDI were consistent risk factors for both recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The models assessed invasiveness risk and survival risk in two critical periods: pre-surgery and post-surgery. The AUC values for predicting locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), uterine body invasion (UBI), lymph node positivity (LNP), adjuvant therapy (ADT), parauterine invasion (PUI), and vaginal invasion (VI) were 0.714, 0.781, 0.781, 0.719, 0.756, and 0.700, respectively. For OS, the pre-surgery and post-surgery models achieved C-index of 0.875 and 0.906, while the RFS models yielded 0.790 and 0.863, respectively. All models showed AUC ≥ 0.7, strong calibration, and positive net benefit on DCA. Interactive web tools were implemented based on these models. Conclusions: Comprehensive hematological profiling enables accurate prediction of cervical cancer invasiveness and survival during different decision-making periods. Our ML-enhanced, web-implemented models can enhance risk stratification and clinical decisions, particularly in resource-limited 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.