ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting objective response to PD-1 inhibitors in lung cancer patients.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the substantial heterogeneity in the efficacy of immunotherapy for lung cancer, identifying reliable predictive factors is crucial. This study aims to develop a machine learning (ML) model to identify predictors of achieving objective response in lung cancer patients receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University between November 2021 and November 2024. Patients were categorised into response group [complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)] and non-response group [stable disease (SD) + progressive disease (PD)] based on treatment efficacy. Following least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) analysis to screen clinical characteristics, 10 ML algorithms were employed to evaluate the top 10 response-associated factors for model construction. Model performance was rigorously assessed using metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithm analysed feature contributions within the optimal model. Results: This study included 212 lung cancer patients who were treated with PD-1 inhibitors. The categorical boosting (CatBoost) model demonstrated the best overall predictive performance among the 10 models, achieving an AUC of 0.961 in the training set and 0.871 in the validation set. SHAP results indicated that patients with low tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, high haemoglobin levels, and a history of surgery were more likely to achieve objective response to lung cancer treatment. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier stratification showed that patients with a high probability of response exhibited significantly longer progression-free survival. Conclusions: This study successfully developed and validated a CatBoost model to predict the objective response of lung cancer patients receiving PD-1 inhibitor therapy. The model demonstrates high efficacy in predicting short-term objective response, providing a robust tool for clinical evaluation. The accompanying web-based risk platform serves as a hypothesis-generating and decision-supportive tool, holding preliminary clinical potential to support individualised screening and risk stratification in lung cancer patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors.
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.