ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Prediction of peak oxygen uptake using interpretable machine learning on routinely available preoperative assessments before lung resection.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the reference standard for preoperative functional assessment before lung resection, but its use is limited by resource and practical constraints. This study developed and internally evaluated an interpretable machine learning model to estimate preoperative peak oxygen uptake (VO Methods: This single-centre retrospective study included 320 consecutive patients in South Korea who underwent preoperative treadmill CPET between April 2018 and March 2024. Thirty-three routinely available predictors-including demographic characteristics, anthropometric measures, pulmonary function results, and bioimpedance-derived indices-were used to train predictive models. Model development employed 10 repeats of 5-fold nested cross-validation. The best-performing model was interpreted using Shapley additive explanations. Potential prioritisation performance was assessed by classifying patients with VO Results: Random forest showed the best performance, with a root mean square error of 3.750±0.731, a mean absolute error of 2.901±0.599, and a coefficient of determination of 0.323±0.153, indicating moderate explanatory performance for VO Conclusions: This predictive model showed moderate performance for estimating VO
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.