ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2025
Identification of biomarkers in gynecologic cancers: a machine learning approach for metabolomics.
Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating artificial intelligence and multi-omics data for precision oncology in endometrial cancer: a narrative review.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the clinical metabolic markers associated with gynecologic cancer (GC) by comparing machine learning (ML) algorithms with orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). Untargeted metabolomic analysis was performed on plasma from 42 patients with GC (24 cervical cancer [CC], 9 endometrial cancer [EC], and 9 ovarian cancer [OC]) and 57 healthy female participants. GC and healthy control groups were classified using OPLS-DA and 8 ML algorithms. The ML algorithm with the best classification performance was used to assess CC, EC, and OC with healthy subjects, and metabolite candidates involved in each GC were selected. Upon comparing the classification model performance between the GC and control groups, random forest (RF) model displayed the best performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9999. The multi-classification RF model was established to distinguish all 4 groups and was achieved an AUC of 0.8351. The AUCs of the 3 GC subgroup assessment RF models comparing patients with CC, EC, and OC with healthy subjects were 0.9838, 0.7500, and 0.7321, respectively. Plasma concentrations of 2 identified metabolites significantly increased in patients with GCs. Several ML algorithms were used to distinguish GC, showed better performance than conventional OPLS-DA. Proline betaine and lysophosphatidyl ethanolamine (18:0/0:0) selected in RF models were suggested as metabolite candidates associated with GCs.
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.