ArticleScientific reports2025
Construction and validation of a risk prediction model for complications in patients with acute leukemia based on machine learning.
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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Management of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Radiomics: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-phase severe complications remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality during induction chemotherapy for acute leukaemia. Existing risk scores capture only limited prognostic variance and are rarely well-calibrated for clinical decision support. To develop and externally validate a machine-learning model that accurately predicts severe complications after induction, and to assess its clinical utility across key patient sub-groups. We retrospectively assembled electronic-health-record data from three tertiary haematology centres (2013-2024). After exclusion of duplicates and predefined ineligible cases, 2 870 adults with newly diagnosed AML or ALL were analysed (derivation = 2 009; external validation = 861). Forty-two candidate predictors spanning demographics, comorbidity indices, baseline laboratory values, disease biology and treatment logistics were selected via multiple imputation, Winsorised z-scaling and correlation filtering. Five supervised algorithms-including Elastic-Net, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM and a multilayer perceptron-were trained using nested 5-fold cross-validation. Discrimination, calibration, decision-curve net benefit and SHAP-based interpretability were evaluated according to TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI recommendations. LightGBM achieved the highest mean AUROC in derivation (0.824 ± 0.008) and maintained robust performance in external validation (AUROC = 0.801, 95% CI 0.774-0.827; AUPRC = 0.628). Calibration was excellent (slope = 0.97; intercept = - 0.03; Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.41). Decision-curve analysis showed superior net benefit over "treat-all," "treat-none," and a four-variable logistic benchmark across risk thresholds of 5-40%, potentially enabling targeted interventions for 14 additional high-risk patients per 100 at a 20% threshold, though clinical benefit requires prospective validation. Discrimination remained ≥ 0.80 in AML, older adults and all three centres. CRP, absolute neutrophil count, cytogenetic-risk tier, age and ferritin were the top predictors, with interpretable monotonic SHAP effects. A rigorously validated LightGBM model provides well-calibrated, interpretable prediction of early severe complications after induction therapy for acute leukaemia and provides a foundation for risk-adapted supportive care strategies, though prospective studies are needed to demonstrate clinical impact. Prospective implementation studies are warranted to confirm real-world impact.
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.