ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning-based prediction of recurrence after curative resection in non-small cell lung cancer.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrence after curative resection remains a major clinical challenge in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and improved postoperative risk stratification is needed. Machine learning (ML) approaches may enhance recurrence prediction using routinely available clinicopathologic data. We analyzed 265 patients who underwent curative lung cancer surgery. Recurrence was the primary endpoint. Seventeen clinical, pathological, and treatment-related variables were evaluated. Multiple supervised ML classifiers were trained using the full dataset and reduced feature sets generated by ANOVA, chi-square, and Kruskal-Wallis methods. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), and F1 score. Prognostic factors were examined with Cox regression, and model interpretability was explored through feature importance and SHAP analysis. Recurrence occurred in 82 patients (30.9%). AdaBoost achieved the highest accuracy (0.79) and F1 score (0.87), whereas SVC-RBF showed the highest AUC (0.81). Performance remained stable across feature-selection strategies. Histologic subtype, tumor size, tumor grade, and ECOG performance status were consistently influential variables, with ECOG status and tumor size dominating SHAP-based predictions. These findings indicate that ML models using routine clinicopathologic variables can reliably predict recurrence after NSCLC surgery and support individualized postoperative risk assessment.
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.