ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
A multidimensional data-driven approach to surgical plan optimization and postoperative residual tumor prediction in ovarian cancer.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds: Ovarian cancer represents a deadly gynecological malignancy, with surgical treatment being a key component of its management. We sought to integrate clinical characteristics and ascites immune microenvironment features into a deep learning model to predict postoperative residual tumor status and assist in surgical decision-making. Methods: 118 FIGO III/IV high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients treated at Peking University Third Hospital (2019-2024) were enrolled. Clinical characteristics, surgical methods, and postoperative residual tumor status were collected. Ascites samples were processed via density gradient centrifugation and flow cytometry. Deep learning model was built by fusing clinical and immune data, and its performance was validated under a gradient of feature quantities (5-45 features) to optimize feature selection. Model performance was comprehensively evaluated on a test set (20% of the dataset) using metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, and compared with traditional machine learning models (random forest, XGBoost, et al). Confusion matrices and probability heatmaps were used for visual analysis. For model interpretability, we presented feature importance and results from SHAP analysis. Results: Our model achieved 70.83% accuracy, 71.21% precision, 70.83% recall, and 70.89% F1 score on the test set, outperforming traditional machine learning models: random forest (accuracy: 64.6%, precision: 65.1%, recall: 64.6%, F1 score: 66.4%), XGBoost (accuracy: 66.7%, precision: 67.0%, recall: 66.7%, F1 score: 66.6%), and logistic regression (accuracy: 58.3%, precision: 59.0%, recall: 58.4%, F1 score: 58.2%). It demonstrated strong performance in identifying high-risk R2 cases but showed limitations in differentiating between R0 and R1 statuses. Probability heatmaps visualized the distribution of R0, R1, and R2 probabilities under different surgical methods, facilitating intuitive clinical reference. Interpretability analysis via permutation feature importance and SHAP highlighted the critical role of surgical methods and specific immune microenvironment features in predictive outcomes. Conclusion: This study developed a novel deep learning-based model to predict postoperative residual tumor probability, integrating clinical and immune microenvironment data. While the model excelled in identifying high-risk cases (e.g., R2), further optimization is needed to improve R0 and R1 differentiation. Future research should expand datasets and integrate multi-omics data to enhance predictive accuracy and clinical applicability.
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.