ArticleScientific reports2025
The construction of HMME-PDT efficacy prediction model for port-wine stain based on machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Port-wine stains: molecular drivers, translational models, and emerging theragnostic directions.Lasers in medical science · 2026Review
- Computational modeling of oxygen dynamics in port-wine stain photodynamic therapy: treatment outcome optimization and pain management.Journal of biomedical optics · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hematoporphyrin monomethyl ether-photodynamic therapy (HMME-PDT) is a safe and effective treatment for port-wine stain (PWS). Comprehensive methods for predicting HMME-PDT efficacy based on clinical factors are lacking. This study aims to develop and validate two machine learning models to predict the therapeutic effect of HMME-PDT for PWS. We conducted a retrospective study of 131 facial PWS patients treated with single HMME-PDT at the Second Xiangya Hospital from May 2022 to January 2025. The patients were divided into the training cohort and the validation cohort based on the order of their enrollment. Key clinical features were selected using recursive feature elimination (RFE). We developed and validated prediction models with Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Random Forest (RF) algorithms. Model performance was assessed using confusion matrix and evaluation metrics. RFE identified the top predictive factors: dermoscopy vascular pattern, immediate fluorescence intensity (IFI) after HMME-PDT, the facial port-wine stain area and severity index score, and age. In the training cohort, both models demonstrated strong predictive performance, with accuracies, F1 scores, and AUC values exceeding 0.8. The XGBoost model outperformed with an accuracy of 0.8750, F1 score of 0.8750, and AUC of 0.8636. In the validation cohort, XGBoost model achieved an accuracy and F1 score both greater than 0.73, with an AUC value of 0.7672. It had the better comprehensive performance. Our findings suggest these models are promising for predicting HMME-PDT efficacy in PWS. This is the first study to explore IFI after HMME-PDT in efficacy assessment.
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.