ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
An explainable machine learning model for predicting bladder tumor aecurrence risk.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bladder cancer is associated with considerable postoperative recurrence rates. Accurate risk prediction remains challenging in clinical practice. Objective: To develop and validate an explainable machine learning model for predicting bladder tumor recurrence following surgical treatment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 504 patients with pathologically confirmed bladder tumors treated at the Department of Urology, Zhejiang Dinghai Hospital, from October 2018 to October 2024. Postoperative surveillance was conducted at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to assess recurrence status. The dataset was randomly partitioned into training (n=352) and testing (n=152) sets prior to analysis. LASSO regression with lambda.1se criterion was performed exclusively on the training set to identify predictive features, yielding 19 candidate variables. Subsequently, eleven machine learning algorithms were evaluated: Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting Machine, Neural Network, AdaBoost, Decision Tree, C5.0, Support Vector Machine, Elastic Net, and Naive Bayes. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), recall, accuracy, F1-score, precision, and negative predictive value (NPV), with 95% confidence intervals calculated for all metrics. Results: During follow-up, 90 of 504 patients (17.9%) developed tumor recurrence. XGBoost utilizing seven features demonstrated optimal performance, achieving an AUC of 0.994 in the independent testing set. The final predictive variables included BMI, maximum tumor diameter, tumor morphology, smoking status, extravesical invasion signs, tumor number, and dome location. SHAP analysis identified BMI (mean absolute SHAP value: 1.5359) and maximum tumor diameter (1.4565) as primary contributors to predictions, followed by morphology (1.3370) and smoking status (1.2798). Conclusion: The seven-feature XGBoost model provides accurate prediction of bladder tumor recurrence with transparent feature contributions. This explainable approach may assist clinicians in risk stratification and individualized surveillance planning.
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.