ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and validation of a machine learning-based predictive model for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in colorectal cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning-based predictive model for individualized assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A total of 450 patients with CRC undergoing chemotherapy were retrospectively enrolled in the training cohort, and an additional 150 patients were included for external validation. Feature selection was performed using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. Three machine learning algorithms [Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)] were applied to construct predictive models. Model performance was assessed using multiple metrics, including accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was employed to rank and interpret the importance of predictive features. Results: In the training cohort, 52.4% of patients developed CIM. The feature selection process identified 19 significant variables that were incorporated into the predictive models. Both LR and RF demonstrated optimal performance, with an AUC of 0.83 and an accuracy of 0.76 in the training set. In the test set, RF continued to outperform other models, achieving an AUC of 0.77 and an accuracy of 0.71. External validation confirmed the robustness of the RF model, which achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97), an accuracy of 0.89, a sensitivity of 0.86, and a specificity of 0.92. SHAP analysis revealed that the most important predictors included hematological parameters, nutritional risk score (NRS2002), and a history of radiotherapy. Conclusion: The RF-based machine learning model demonstrated high accuracy and strong external validation capability for predicting the risk of CIM in CRC patients.
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.