ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Development and external validation of machine-learning models for diagnosing malignant pleural effusion.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinicians face challenges in diagnosing malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and distinguishing it from benign causes. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models for this purpose. Methods: The retrospective study included 1,530 untreated patients with pleural effusion (PE) between January 2016 and December 2025. Clinical variables, including age, sex, smoking status, and laboratory indices were collected for analysis. The patients were randomly divided into the training and test sets at a ratio of 7:3. Six ML algorithms were developed and compared to determine the best diagnostic model for MPE using seven metrics, calibration curve, and decision curve. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were used to interpret the model. An independent cohort of 244 PE patients was used for external validation. Results: Based on the feature importance analysis, the XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) model achieved the best diagnostic performance in the training set, with an AUC of 0.988 (95% CI: 0.982-0.993), the lowest brier score 0.037 (95% CI: 0.029-0.045), and high values for accuracy of 0.951, sensitivity of 0.891, specificity of 0.984, and F1 score of 0.928. Six features were included: fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), serum CEA, serum cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1), fluid carbohydrate antigen 724 (CA724), fluid carbohydrate antigen CA199 (CA199), and fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA). SHAP analysis showed that fluid CEA, fluid ADA, and serum CYFRA21-1 were the three most important variables. Conclusions: We developed and validated an accurate and interpretable XGBoost model for distinguishing MPE from BPE using routine laboratory data, which might be applied in clinical practice and 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.