ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2026
Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Peripheral Blood Biomarkers for Esophageal Cancer Risk Prediction.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological and Translational Considerations for Blood-Based Machine-Learning Prescreening of Esophageal Cancer [Letter].International journal of general medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Noninvasive, low-cost prescreening tools are needed to improve risk stratification for esophageal cancer (EC) before endoscopic confirmation. We developed and validated explainable machine-learning (ML) models using routine peripheral blood biomarkers. Methods: This dual-center retrospective case-control study enrolled 454 participants (198 EC cases, 256 non-EC controls) from two hospitals between March 2021 and June 2025. Data were randomly split 7:3 into training (n=319) and validation (n=135) sets. LASSO regression selected nine features (SIRI, MLR, AST, ADA, CREA, UA, K, PT, and TT). Seven algorithms-logistic regression, decision tree, random forest (RF), XGBoost, LightGBM, support vector machine, and artificial neural network-were trained with 10-fold cross-validation and grid-search hyperparameter tuning. Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, clinical utility, and confusion matrices, with Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) for interpretation. Results: Baseline demographics and comorbidities were comparable between groups. In the validation set, RF performed best (AUC=0.973; accuracy=0.926; sensitivity=0.881; specificity=0.961; F1-score=0.912), achieved the lowest Brier score (0.059), and showed favorable net benefit. SHAP analysis identified creatinine and SIRI as the most influential features, where lower creatinine and higher SIRI increased predicted EC risk. Conclusion: This explainable RF model showed excellent discrimination and good calibration. As a retrospective case-control study using healthy controls, it is intended as a prescreening tool to guide endoscopic referral rather than a diagnostic test, and requires prospective external validation before clinical use.
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.