ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Predicting adverse prognostic outcomes in hospitalized breast cancer patients: development and validation of a risk model.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer prognosis is influenced by diverse clinical factors, necessitating advanced predictive tools for personalized treatment. This study developed machine learning models to predict adverse outcomes in breast cancer patients using comprehensive clinical data.
methodsWe analyzed data from 4,242 patients (3,836 with stable progression and 406 with adverse outcomes) at a single institution. Feature selection via univariate/multivariate analysis and machine learning importance ranking identified 10 key predictors, including metastasis stage, hospitalization duration, total healthcare costs, and laboratory test results. Ten machine learning models were evaluated using 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 undersampling ratios to address class imbalance. Performance was assessed via accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the area under the curve (AUC), and precision.
resultsThe Random Forest (RF) model achieved an optimal balance with 88.69% accuracy, 0.733 sensitivity, and 0.952 specificity (AUC range: 0.881–0.898) across sampling ratios, demonstrating superior class separation.SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis revealed metastasis (SHAP = + 6.0) as the strongest risk factor, while marital status and Luminal A subtype were protective. Logistic Regression(LR) also performed robustly (AUC > 0.88), excelling in specificity (0.950 under 1:3 undersampling).
conclusionMachine learning models, particularly RF and LR, effectively predicted prognosis by integrating clinical and laboratory features. RF’s stability in imbalanced data and interpretability via SHAP enhanced clinical utility. Future multi-center studies should validate these findings and explore causal mechanisms. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.