ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2026
Personalized risk prediction of financial toxicity in patients with cancer: an interpretable machine learning study.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFinancial toxicity (FT), the economic stress from medical care, is common among people with cancer and is associated with worse health outcomes. While risk factors for FT are known, personalized FT risk prediction tools to help mitigate FT are lacking.
methodsThis study developed and evaluated machine learning models to predict FT risk using data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey-Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement for patients undergoing or within 1 year of cancer treatment. FT was defined as the presence of >1 of the following: bankruptcy, unpaid medical bills, payment concerns, or debt. Several models were trained using demographic, clinical, economic, and social variables. Fine-tuning was performed to enhance sensitivity in predicting FT. The Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) were used for interpretability of the model.
resultsAmong 793 people with cancer, 283 (36%) experienced FT. A fine-tuned random forest algorithm achieved an AUROC of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.91) and an accuracy of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.85), with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72 to 0.92) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI = 0.66 to 0.83), demonstrating balanced classification performance. SHAP values identified key predictors of FT risk, including younger age, lower income, higher medical expenditures, and poorer health status. To support clinical implementation, we developed a web-based FT risk calculator (https://hd-research.shinyapps.io/ftriskcalc/).
conclusionThe fine-tuned random forest algorithm resulted in promising results for predicting personalized FT risk. Integrated into a web-based calculator, the model has strong potential to help mitigate FT by identifying high-risk patients early in the cancer care continuum.
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.