ArticleScientific reports2025
An assisted diagnostic and prognostic model for endometrial cancer using 36 serological markers and clinical variables from 562 patients.
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 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endometrial carcinoma (EC) has demonstrated a concerning epidemiological trajectory. Current evaluation systems for EC are limited to postoperative analysis, necessitating the development of a preoperative risk stratification model. Researchers aimed to create a machine learning-based approach using multiple serological markers and clinical variables to predict EC characteristics. A dataset of 508 EC patients and 54 patients with endometrial atypical hyperplasia (EAH) was utilized. Seven supervised machine learning classifiers were evaluated, with the Random Forest classifier being the most effective. The use of advanced computational models that integrate diverse biological markers and clinical factors has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for various outcomes in endometrial cancer compared to traditional single-variable regression methods. Among these models, the Random Forest classifier achieved high area under the curve (AUC) values (0.81-0.94) and exhibited strong predictive performance. Other models, including Gradient Boosting Regression, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, Gaussian Naive Bayes, Neural Networks, and Elastic Net, were also evaluated. The key predictors varied depending on the specific outcomes. The machine learning approach utilizing combined serological markers and clinical variables allows effective non-invasive preoperative prediction of key EC characteristics, including diagnosis, staging, metastasis risk, and prognosis, with the Random Forest classifier proving most effective. Specifically, human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is pivotal for risk stratification (including stages and Mayo criteria), while carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) excels in detecting lymph node invasion. This serum-based strategy complements invasive methods, enhancing early EC management and enabling personalized treatment.
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.