ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2026
Interpretable machine learning for cardiovascular disease risk prediction in cancer survivors: development and internal validation.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 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
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major concern among cancer survivors. However, the intersection of cancer and CVD has only recently gained broader attention, and substantial evidence gaps remain. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with incident CVD in cancer survivors and to develop a machine learning model for CVD risk prediction.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we included 2,500 patients receiving systemic antitumor therapy at Jilin Cancer Hospital; 188 incident CVD events were observed. Variables spanning demographic, clinical, tumor- and treatment-related, and laboratory domains were collected. The dataset was randomly split into a training set (75%) and an internal validation set (25%). Feature selection was performed using LASSO regression. Six prediction models were developed, including five machine learning algorithms (GBM, CoxBoost, XGBoost, SVM, and RSF) and a traditional Cox proportional hazards model. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), calibration analyses, and decision curve analysis. Model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP).
resultsIn univariate analyses, 48 variables were associated with CVD risk (P < 0.20). LASSO regression identified 19 predictors for model development. Key predictors included elevated systolic blood pressure, specific cancer types, anthracycline use, and a history of hypertension. The XGBoost model demonstrated the best predictive performance, with an average AUC of 0.666, sensitivity of 69.8%, specificity of 60.7%, and overall accuracy of 61.4% in the internal validation set. The model showed good calibration and yielded a positive net benefit across a range of clinical thresholds. SHAP analysis indicated that cancer type, lack of anti-HER2 therapy, elevated systolic blood pressure, advanced T stage, advanced TNM stage, and higher uric acid levels were the most influential predictors.
conclusionThis study developed and internally validated interpretable machine learning models to predict CVD risk among cancer survivors. The models demonstrated good discrimination and calibration and outperformed traditional methods. By enabling individualized risk quantification and providing transparent interpretation of key predictors, this approach offers a practical tool to support personalized surveillance and prevention strategies in cardio-oncology.
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.