ArticlePeerJ2026
Interpretable machine learning model using CT body composition combined with inflammatory and nutritional indicators to predict pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate prediction of pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is critical for optimizing treatment in breast cancer. This study develops and validates an interpretable, cost-effective machine learning (ML) model integrating computed tomography (CT)-based body composition parameters with routine inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers to predict pCR. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study ( Results: Six independent predictors were identified: visceral adipose tissue density, skeletal muscle density, intramuscular adipose tissue content, albumin-to-alkaline phosphatase ratio, systemic inflammation response index, and molecular subtype. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.888 (95% CI [0.837-0.939]) in internal validation and 0.831 (95% CI [0.723-0.938]) in the independent test set. The model exhibited good calibration (Brier score = 0.180). SHAP analysis highlighted the contribution of host-related factors alongside tumor biology. Conclusions: This interpretable ML model effectively integrates host-related body composition and inflammatory-nutritional markers to predict pCR. By utilizing routinely available data, this approach offers a practical, accessible tool for initial risk stratification, complementing existing imaging-based strategies and supporting personalized clinical decision-making.
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.