ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Early prediction and risk stratification of ovarian cancer based on clinical data using machine learning approaches.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A leakage-aware entropy screening protocol for structured biomarker panel evaluation in ovarian cancer risk modelling.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Prediction of Early Diagnosis in Ovarian Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning Approaches with Boruta and Advanced Feature Selection.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOur study was aimed to construct a predictive model to advance ovarian cancer diagnosis by machine learning.
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients with pelvic/adnexal/ovarian mass was performed. Potential features related to ovarian cancer were obtained as many as possible. The optimal machine learning algorithm was selected among six candidates through 5-fold cross validation. Top 20 features having the most powerful predictive significance were ranked by Shapley Additive Interpretation (Shap) method. Clinical validation was further performed to confirm whether our model could advance diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
resultsA total of 9,799 patients were collected. The inclusion criteria included age >18 years old, the first diagnosis being pelvic/adnexal/ovarian mass of undetermined significance, and pathological report indispensable. Four hundred and thirty-eight dimensional features were obtained after filtration. LightGBM showed the best performance with accuracy 88%. Among the top 20 features, 55% belonged to laboratory test report, 35% came from imaging examination report, and 10% were attributed to basic demographics and main symptom. Age, CA125, and risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm were the top three. Our predictive model performed stably in testing and clinical validation datasets, and was found to advance the diagnosis of ovarian cancer about 17 days before clinical pathological examination.
conclusionLightGBM was the optimal algorithm for our predictive model with accuracy of 88%. Laboratory test and imaging examination played essential roles in diagnosing ovarian cancer. Our model could advance the diagnosis of ovarian cancer before clinical pathological examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.