ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Development and internal validation of machine learning models for predicting lymph node metastasis in cutaneous head and neck melanoma.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) carry substantial metastatic potential, yet reliable individualized prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) remains challenging for clinical practice. This study developed machine learning models to predict LNM risk in patients with CHNM using routine clinicopathological data, and compared model predictive performance to support clinical nodal risk stratification for sentinel lymph node biopsy decision-making. Methods: We enrolled 1,451 patients with CHNM. Among them, 242 (16.7%) had LNM, and 1,209 (83.3%) did not. We used one-hot encoding for categorical variables and Z-score standardization for continuous variables, respectively. The Boruta algorithm was used to select key factors. Seven machine learning models were built, with hyperparameters optimized by 5-fold cross-validation. We tested model performance using sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) eta. Finally, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was adopted to explain model results. Results: According to the Boruta algorithm, age, histological type, ulceration, mitotic rate and Breslow thickness were selected as independent predictive factors. Nodular melanoma (Histologic_X8721) emerged as a novel independent predictor, which has been rarely reported in CHNM. The extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) showed good AUC of 0.748 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.692-0.804], balanced performance (accuracy 0.686, sensitivity 0.658, specificity 0.691), and better clinical practicability in high-threshold DCA. KNN achieved the highest sensitivity (0.671), alongside a balanced accuracy of 0.687 and an AUC of 0.734 (95% CI: 0.672-0.795), with good calibration and net benefit in most situations. Although the MLP obtained the highest AUC value (0.755, 95% CI: 0.698-0.811), the model showed sub-optimal outcomes on calibration and decision-curve-analysis plots. Conclusions: These interpretable machine learning models may serve as an auxiliary reference for assessing LNM risk at initial diagnosis, supporting nodal metastasis risk stratification and clinical judgment of sentinel lymph node biopsy in CHNM patients.
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.