ArticleESMO open2026
Prediction of cancer-associated thrombosis by machine learning: results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study.
Article in ESMO open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproved risk prediction of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an unmet clinical need. We aimed to apply machine learning for the prediction of cancer-associated VTE. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (Vienna-CATS), a prospective cohort study that included patients with cancer from 2003-2019, were used. Patient characteristics and laboratory measurements (including various routine and experimental laboratory assays) were used to train and validate six classification models for VTE prediction. Monte Carlo cross-validation was conducted, with 80% of the samples randomly assigned to the training set and 20% to the test set. Preprocessing algorithms fitted on the training data were applied to the test data to avoid data leakage. Discrimination and input parameter influence were assessed.
resultsIn total, 2193 patients (46.6% women) with a median age of 62 (interquartile range 52-68) years were included. The most common tumor types were lung (18.1%), brain (15.3%), and breast cancer (15.1%). Within 6 months and 2 years, 124 (cumulative incidence: 6.4%) and 186 (10.7%) VTE events occurred. The best performing model for VTE prediction was machine learning-enhanced Logistic Regression (LGR) with an area under the curve of 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.67] at 6 months and 0.62 (95% CI 0.61-0.62) at 2 years-comparable to established risk assessment models (RAMs). In LGR, the strongest contributors to VTE risk were homozygous factor V Leiden mutation, rectal, testicular, and pancreatic cancer, newly diagnosed cancer, and history of VTE.
conclusionMachine learning models incorporating extensive clinical and biomarker panels did not outperform existing RAMs for cancer-associated VTE.
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.