Observational studyJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2026
Early Identification and Prognostic Stratification of Cancer Cachexia Using Explainable Machine Learning: A Multicentre Cohort Study.
Observational study in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 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
backgroundCancer cachexia is a heterogeneous syndrome that remains frequently underrecognized in routine oncology care, especially before overt wasting develops. We aimed to develop and externally validate an explainable two-stage machine learning framework for early cachexia identification and prognostic stratification using routinely available clinical data.
methodsIn this multicentre real-world study based on the INSCOC registry, 10 796 hospitalized adults with cancer were analysed, including 3995 patients with cachexia and 6801 without cachexia. First-stage machine learning models were trained separately in high- and low-prevalence settings to identify cachexia. Second-stage survival models were developed in 1711 cachexia patients with follow-up data from a 5172-patient follow-up cohort. A total of 586 deaths were observed in the cachexia follow-up cohort. External validation used an independent Fujian cohort of 886 patients.
resultsCachexia prevalence was 37.0% (3995/10 796). Compared with non-cachexia patients, cachexia patients had lower median BMI (21.0 vs. 23.4 kg/m2), albumin (37.9 vs. 39.7 g/L), triceps skinfold thickness (13.0 vs. 16.0 mm), calf circumference (33.0 vs. 35.0 cm) and higher CRP (5.9 vs. 3.9 mg/L); all p < 0.001. For cachexia identification, XGBoost achieved the best discrimination, with an AUC of 0.867 (95% CI: 0.857-0.878), sensitivity 0.706 and specificity 0.846 in the high-prevalence group, and an AUC of 0.870 (95% CI: 0.861-0.880), sensitivity 0.817 and specificity 0.756 in the low-prevalence group. In external validation, the AUCs were 0.744 in the high-prevalence subgroup and 0.694 in the low-prevalence subgroup. Among cachexia patients with follow-up, the 1-year mortality rate was 20.8% (95% CI: 19.0%-22.9%). For prognostic stratification, the random survival forest model showed the most favourable overall performance, with a C-index of 0.680 and time-dependent AUCs of 0.800, 0.777, 0.741 and 0.716 at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, respectively. Advanced TNM stage and higher CRP were associated with worse survival, whereas higher albumin, prealbumin and HDL were associated with better survival.
conclusionsThis explainable two-stage framework enables accurate cachexia identification across different prevalence settings and clinically meaningful prognostic stratification in patients with established cachexia. Using routine variables and independent external validation, it provides a practical basis for earlier recognition, risk-adapted supportive care and precision management in oncology practice.
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.