ArticleScientific reports2026
Diagnosis model of early malignant pulmonary nodules based on clinical laboratory data.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate differentiation of malignant from benign pulmonary nodules remains challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning models integrating seven autoantibodies (7-AABs) and routine laboratory parameters for lung cancer risk prediction. We retrospectively enrolled 310 patients with pulmonary nodules (142 early-stage malignant, 168 benign). LASSO regression was used for feature selection. Eleven machine learning algorithms were developed and validated. Model performance was assessed by AUC, calibration, and decision curve analysis. SHAP was applied for model interpretation. Twelve predictors were selected, including 7-AABs, gender, LYM, RDW, PAR, and fibrinogen (Fg). The random forest model demonstrated optimal performance. A simplified five-feature model (Fg, GBU4-5, SOX2, p53, MAGE A1) retained 95% of incremental discriminatory performance. SHAP identified Fg as the strongest contributor. Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical net benefit. A web-based calculator was developed to facilitate external validation. This proof-of-concept study presents an interpretable machine learning model integrating 7-AABs and routine laboratory parameters for pulmonary nodule risk stratification. The simplified model maintains robust performance while improving clinical practicality. Its current sensitivity (65.1%) precludes standalone screening use; rather, it serves as an auxiliary tool for identifying low-risk patients who may be candidates for conservative management. External and prospective validation are mandatory before clinical translation.
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.