ArticlePain research & management2026
Feasibility Assessment of Telehealth-Based Cancer Pain Management Through Machine Learning: A Prospective Clinical Study.
Article in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Home-Based Telemedicine for Automatic Pain Assessment in Cancer Patients: Dataset Creation and Development of Machine Learning Algorithms
Refining mUltiple Artificial intelliGence strateGies for Automatic Pain Assessment Investigations: RUGGI Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feasibility Assessment of Telehealth-Based Cancer Pain Management Through Machine Learning: A Prospective Clinical Study.Pain research & management · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough telehealth strategies can be effectively adopted to manage cancer pain, identifying the optimal care pathway for tailoring interventions and allocating resources remains difficult. Artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) may help clinicians develop more accurate strategies for predicting whether patients need remote consultations or in-person evaluations.
methodsData from two cohorts of cancer pain patients were analyzed. Variables included sociodemographic and clinical data, including age, sex, ECOG performance status, metastases, bone metastases, pain type, breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP), and rapid onset opioids (ROOs) therapy. The main outcome was the number of televisits (one versus multiple). For preprocessing, datasets from the two cohorts were harmonized by aligning variable definitions, coding schemes, and data formats. Six models were tested: logistic regression, random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNNs), and multilayer perceptron (MLP). Training and tuning used a 7-repeated 5-fold cross-validation approach. Performance was evaluated on a hold-out test set using F1-score, accuracy, and AUC-ROC. A sensitivity analysis with two scenarios was performed to verify the effects of class weighting and excluding the cohort variable.
resultsThe final dataset included 270 patients. No statistically significant associations were identified between the available variables and the number of televisits. F1-scores across models ranged from 0.33 (RF) to 0.65 (MLP), accuracy from 0.45 (RF) to 0.55 (SVM), and AUC-ROC from 0.43 (RF) to 0.65 (LR). DeLong tests showed no significant differences between algorithms (p > 0.05). Although the MLP achieved the highest F1-score, it exhibited instability, with 91% of null F1-scores. Incorporating class weights slightly improved SVM (F1 = 0.58 and AUC = 0.62) and LR (F1 = 0.53 and AUC = 0.63) though not significantly.
conclusionAlthough no model demonstrated strong predictive power, this ML-based framework shows the potential of using structured telemedicine data to model clinical workload and optimize follow-up strategies in cancer pain care.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04726228 and NCT07038434.
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.