ArticleCancers2026
Ensemble Machine Learning Predicts Platinum Resistance in Ovarian Cancer Using Laboratory Data.
Article in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPlatinum resistance remains a critical bottleneck in ovarian cancer management, yet reliable pre-treatment predictive tools are lacking. Existing markers like the platinum-free interval are retrospective, while genomic profiling is often cost-prohibitive. This study aimed to develop an accessible, machine learning-based dynamic weighted fusion (DWF) model using routine laboratory data to provide bidirectional risk stratification, particularly to reliably rule out platinum resistance before treatment initiation.
methodsIn this retrospective study (2019-2023), seventy baseline clinical features were collected to differentiate platinum-resistant from platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients. We developed a DWF framework that dynamically integrates the top-performing classifiers from a library of 168 algorithms (combining 14 feature selection and 12 machine learning methods). Class imbalance was addressed via oversampling, and model efficacy was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsThe DWF model achieved a robust AUC of 0.760 (95% CI: 0.683-0.837), outperforming all individual base classifiers. Subgroup analysis demonstrated highly consistent overall discrimination across initial treatment strategies (AUC of 0.755 for primary debulking surgery and 0.761 for neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Feature interpretation highlighted that resistance is driven by synergistic dysregulation of systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability, rather than single biomarkers.
conclusionsThe proposed DWF model effectively leverages low-cost, standardized clinical data to serve as a robust bidirectional stratification tool. Its exceptional ability to rule out resistance provides clinicians with the evidence-based confidence to proceed with standard therapies, while its high-risk alerts identify candidates for early therapeutic adjustments and enhanced surveillance in ovarian cancer care.
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.