ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
External validation of machine learning models predicting global longitudinal strain from conventional echocardiography in patients with cancer.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a well-established prognostic marker for the early detection of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). We previously developed machine learning (ML) models to predict reduced GLS (Low-GLS, defined as absolute GLS < 16%) from conventional echocardiographic parameters in patients with cancer. This study aimed to externally validate the performance and generalizability of the previously developed ML models in an independent cohort. This multicenter study included patients from the Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center (TMC, n = 1484) and Shizuoka Cancer Center (SCC, n = 141) who underwent echocardiography with GLS measurements before or after anticancer chemotherapy. The exclusion criterion was left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%. Low-GLS was predicted using 25 conventional echocardiographic parameters. The previously developed ML models (Random Forest, Extra Trees, and CatBoost) were directly applied, without retraining, to an independent external validation cohort from SCC. A conventional logistic regression model was included as a reference for comparison. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and other metrics. In the internal validation cohort, the ML models demonstrated discriminative comparable performance (AUCs 0.722-0.748), whereas logistic regression achieved an AUC of 0.729. In the external validation cohort, performance was generally preserved; the Random Forest model demonstrated the highest discriminative ability (AUC 0.772), while the remaining models achieved AUCs of 0.725-0.746. Logistic regression achieved an AUC of 0.738. ML models trained on conventional echocardiographic parameters retained moderate predictive ability for reduced GLS upon external validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42530822What 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.