ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Preoperative differentiation of borderline and malignant ovarian tumors using interpretable machine learning.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel approaches to modulate CAR-T cell function by targeting the tumor microenvironment in ovarian cancer.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Multifaceted Integrated Analysis of CDK1 and TOP2A Signaling Pathways for Multi-Target Therapeutic Intervention in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
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
Ovarian cancer remains one of the most lethal gynecological malignancies, with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) representing lesions of low malignant potential requiring distinct surgical management. Accurate preoperative differentiation between BOTs and epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential for optimizing treatment planning and patient counseling. We developed machine learning models to distinguish BOTs from OC using routine clinical data from 404 patients (199 BOTs, 205 °C) comprising 49 demographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters. Data were obtained from a public repository (n = 349) and a single institutional cohort (n = 55). We evaluated five algorithms: Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Neural Network, Logistic Regression, and Decision Tree, using stratified train-test splits and stratified 5-fold cross-validation repeated five times to ensure robust performance estimation. The Random Forest model achieved the highest performance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98), accuracy of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94), sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92), and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97) at the optimal threshold determined by Youden's index. Feature importance analysis identified HE4 (weight = 0.224), CA125 (weight = 0.089), and neutrophil count (weight = 0.072) as the most discriminative predictors. Performance was comparable across both data sources, with no significant domain shift detected. Machine learning analysis of readily available laboratory parameters demonstrates potential for preoperative differentiation of BOTs from OC. A web-based prototype tool has been developed to facilitate future validation studies.
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.