ArticleScientific reports2025
Heterogeneous graph neural network-based prediction of immune-related adverse events.
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.
- AI-enabled precision prediction and proactive management of cutaneous toxicities in cancer immunoradiotherapy (ICI+RT).Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common and potentially fatal adverse events. However, predicting irAEs based on clinical medication regimens and basic patient information remains a significant clinical challenge. This study aims to develop a prediction model using graph neural networks with electronic health records (EHRs), thereby reducing irAEs risk. Our method based on heterogeneous graph networks. It incorporates medications, diagnoses and patients characteristics from EHRs as nodes to predict irAEs occurrence. Medication-policy simulation, case studies and interpretability analyses were conducted to align the model with real-world clinical needs. Compared to other baseline methods, our method shows superior performance across all evaluation metrics: with AUC of 0.902, AUPRC of 0.85, precision of 0.709, RECALL of 0.799, F1 score of 0.751, accuracy of 0.851. About simulation study, the model demonstrated progressive improvement, reflected in a 5%-6% increase across six evaluation metrics. Interpretability analysis revealed that distinct risk patterns emerge at different treatment stages. Our approach exhibits robust reliability and outperforms other methods for irAEs prediction. Our study further establishes a novel paradigm for personalized therapy monitoring and early intervention. This methodology holds potential for reducing irAEs 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.