ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2026
Explainable machine learning for preoperative relapse prediction in molecularly stratified endometrial cancer: A single-center finnish cohort study.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence and multi-omics data for precision oncology in endometrial cancer: a narrative review.Functional & integrative genomics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Relapse risk in endometrial carcinoma (EC) is driven by molecular subtype, yet current WHO/ESGO classifications rely on postoperative data, limiting their preoperative use. We developed interpretable machine learning (ML) models to predict relapse timing (none, ≤6 months, >6 months) using exclusively preoperative multimodal data. In a single-center retrospective cohort of 784 EC patients, clinicopathological, molecular, immunohistochemical, and systemic biomarkers were integrated using four feature strategies: Traditional (clinicopathology), ESGO-based (guideline risk groups),TP53 + MMRd (high-risk biology), and POLE (low-risk). Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbors, Gradient Boosting (GBM) models were trained with leakage-safe preprocessing and evaluated by area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, recall, and F1 score, with interpretability assessed by SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The RF-Traditional model achieved the best overall performance (F1 = 0.895, AUC = 0.840), while the GBM-POLE model achieved the highest sensitivity (F1 = 0.886, AUC = 0.842). However, prediction of Late Relapse remained challenging (F1 = 0.31) due to class rarity and heterogeneity. Key predictors included ARID1A loss, elevated CA125, thrombocytosis, and p16 expression among key predictors of relapse; while shared high-risk features across models were advanced stage, deep myometrial invasion, elevated CA125, and positive cytology. While multi-center validation is essential, our findings support biologically coherent predictions for individualized preoperative risk stratification, particularly for high-risk molecular subtypes.
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.