ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Construction and validation of a machine learning model for predicting anastomotic leak following radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Background: Early identification of patients at high risk of anastomotic leak (AL) following esophagectomy is essential for improving surgical outcomes. However, reliable preoperative risk stratification remains challenging. This study aimed to predict AL risk in the esophageal cancer (EC) population by developing and validating a machine learning (ML)-based model using exclusively preoperative and baseline clinical data. Methods: A retrospective cohort of EC patients who underwent radical esophagectomy at the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2020 to May 2025 was analyzed. Feature selection was performed using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Five ML algorithms, Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), were constructed. Model performance was comprehensively evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Model interpretability was enhanced via Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), enabling quantification of feature importance and visualization of individual prediction contributions. Results: A total of 368 patients were included and randomized to training (n=258) and validation (n=110) cohorts. Among the models, RF displayed the best discriminative performance in the validation cohort (AUC: 0.803, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.717-0.892), followed by XGBoost (AUC: 0.723) and LightGBM (AUC: 0.713). The RF model yielded a sensitivity (SEN) of 0.879 and a specificity (SPE) of 0.571. SHAP analysis identified monocytes, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), urine creatinine (UCr), and T stage as the five most influential predictors of AL. Calibration curves for the ensemble models demonstrated good agreement between predicted probabilities and observed outcomes. Conclusions: The RF model, incorporating five routinely available preoperative variables, exhibited robust discriminative performance with high SEN for predicting in-hospital AL following esophagectomy. The proposed threshold-based risk stratification approach may facilitate individualized perioperative monitoring and management.
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.