ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
The predictive value of
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study assessed the utility of baseline Methods: A total of 724 patients from two centers were allocated to training, validation, and test cohorts. Peritumoral regions were delineated with 2-8 mm radial expansions using LIFEx, while tumor habitat subregions were identified via k-means clustering. Multiple machine learning algorithms were employed to develop clinical-metabolic, intratumoral, peritumoral, habitat, and combined models. Model performance was assessed using AUC, calibration curves, DCA, and DeLong tests, and SHAP analysis was applied to interpret critical predictive features. Results: In the test cohort, the combined model achieved the highest and most favorable predictive performance for EGFR mutation (AUC = 0.862, 95% CI: 0.80-0.93), followed by the habitat model (AUC = 0.831, 95% CI: 0.76-0.90). Both models significantly outperformed all other models across datasets (all Conclusion: Baseline
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.