ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer.
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 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.
- Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting treatment non-adherence in chronic diseases: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD), a common adverse reaction in breast cancer radiotherapy, impairs quality of life and increases healthcare burdens. Developing an effective risk prediction model is crucial for early high-risk patient identification and preventive interventions. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 691 breast cancer patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy at our center from February 1 to December 19, 2024. RD severity and correlates were monitored during and 2 weeks after radiotherapy. The dataset was divided into training (n=552) and test (n=139) cohorts. Fourteen machine learning algorithms were evaluated via 10-fold cross-validation, with model selection based on Area Under the Curve (AUC) and other metrics. Model reliability was verified using an internal hold-out test set, and SHAP analysis ensured interpretability. Results: Among 691 patients,52.68% (n=364) developed grade ≥2 acute RD. The random forest model performed best, achieving an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.807-0.873) in training and 0.748 (0.665-0.831) in testing, with training/testing sensitivity/specificity of 0.811/0.747 and 0.877/0.576, respectively. Calibration curves confirmed prediction-observation consistency. Decision curve analysis indicated 0.2-0.4 higher net benefits than "treat-all" or "treat-none" strategies at 25%-75% treatment thresholds. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis identified Clinical Target Volume-Supraclavicular (CTVsc), Clinical Target Volume-Internal Mammary (CTVim), TNM stage II, and diabetic status as key predictors. Conclusion: This explainable machine learning model demonstrates robust discriminative power and clinical utility. Interpretability analysis revealed feature nonlinearities, providing a theoretical basis for personalized radiotherapy planning to reduce severe RD risk.
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.