ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Validation of machine learning-based models to predict and explain the risk of ovarian cancer: a multicentric study on
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- Deep Generative and Graph-Based Representation Learning for Multiomics Survival Stratification in Ovarian Cancer: Secondary Analysis.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2026Article
- A panel of machine learning approaches for diagnostic model development and validation in ovarian cancer.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Methods: In this work, we addressed this task by developing explainable ML models using clinical data referred to a multicentric cohort of 694 Results: The best ML model achieved an AUC value of 79.3% (95% CI: 75.3% - 83.0%), an accuracy value of 73.8% (95% CI: 69.6% - 78.2%), a sensitivity value of 66.7% (95% CI: 58.1% - 75.3%), a specificity value of 74.3% (95% CI: 68.7% - 80.0%), and a G-mean value of 70.4% (95% CI: 63.0% - 76.0%) on EVC. Although the model demonstrated good overall performance, its limited sensitivity reduces its effectiveness in this high-risk population. The variables CA125, age and MatoRRSO were found to be the most significant risk factors, in agreement with the clinical perspective. Conversely, variables such as Estroprogestinuse and PregnancyNfdt played a protective factor role. Conclusion: Our ML proposal explores the intricate relationships between multiple clinical variables, with a particular emphasis on understanding their non-linear associations. However, while our approach provides valuable insights into risk assessment for BRCA-mutated patients, its current predictive capacity does not significantly improve upon existing clinical models.
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.