ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2026
From regression to machine learning: improving prediction of rectal cancer recurrence.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecurrence after curative-intent treatment of rectal cancer remains a major clinical challenge. Conventional regression models may not adequately capture complex clinical interactions, whereas machine learning algorithms may improve predictive accuracy. This study compared regression-based and machine learning models for predicting recurrence using routinely collected clinical data.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 581 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated between 2013 and 2022 at 2 university hospitals in Thailand was analyzed. Seventeen demographic, pathological, and treatment-related features were used to develop logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), support vector machine, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) models. Data were split using stratified train-test sampling (80:20). Fivefold cross-validation, calibration, and decision curve analyses were performed. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), average precision (AP), F1 score, sensitivity, specificity, and feature importance.
resultsAll models demonstrated moderate discriminative performance. AUC values ranged from 0.626 (LightGBM) to 0.662 (XGBoost), while AP scores ranged from 0.483 (LightGBM) to 0.584 (RF). LR achieved perfect sensitivity (1.000) at the F1-optimized threshold, RF provided the strongest balance between precision and recall, and XGBoost achieved the highest AUC. Key predictors included carcinoembryonic antigen level, nodal status, surgical margin status, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved.
conclusionMachine learning models modestly outperformed regression-based approaches, although their clinical value lies primarily in tailoring model strengths to specific priorities. Selecting LR, RF, or XGBoost according to objectives such as maximizing sensitivity, achieving balanced precision-recall, or enabling risk stratification may enhance recurrence surveillance in rectal cancer.
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.