MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414430602 · doi:10.2196/73765

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer: Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model Using Clinical Data

2025· article· en· W4414430602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chuangwei Li, Shouhong Wan, Bingbing Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive modellingArea under curvePatient dataLymph node metastasisComputed tomographyClinical PracticeLogistic regressionText mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rectal cancer (RC) is a common malignant tumor, with lymph node metastasis (LNM) being a critical determinant of patient prognosis. Traditional diagnostic methods have limitations, necessitating the development of predictive models using clinical data. Objective: This study aimed to construct and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict LNM risk in patients with RC based on clinical data. Methods: Retrospective data from 2454 patients with RC (SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database) were split into training (n=1954) and internal validation (n=500) sets. An external cohort (n=500) was obtained from the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Lymph node features identified via computed tomographic scans were integrated with clinicopathological data. Variables were selected using LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator), followed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Eleven ML models (Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Extremely Randomized Trees, Naive Bayes, XGBoost [XBG], Light Gradient Boosting Machine, Multilayer Perceptron, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Ada-Boost) were evaluated via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. Results: LNM prevalence was 26.9% (training), 27% (internal validation), and 81% (external validation). Independent LNM predictors included tumor grade, clinical T stage, N stage, tumor length, neural invasion, and total lymph nodes. Internal validation AUC ranged from 0.859 to 0.964; external validation AUC was 0.735-0.838. In the internal validation set, Random Forest and Extremely Randomized Trees achieved the highest AUC (0.964, 95% CI 0.950-0.978), while XGB demonstrated superior cross-cohort stability (AUC 0.942, 95% CI 0.925-0.959). For external validation, Gradient Boosting had the highest AUC (0.838, 95% CI 0.801-0.875), followed by XGB (0.832, 95%CI 0.794-0.869). XGB showed minimal calibration error with curves closest to the ideal diagonal and yielded the highest net benefit in decision curve analysis across critical thresholds. Conclusions: This study successfully developed and validated 11 ML models to predict LNM risk in RC. The XGB model was optimal, achieving an AUC >0.9 in 10 internal models and an AUC >0.8 in 7 external models. The identified predictors of LNM can facilitate early diagnosis and personalized treatment, highlighting the potential of integrating computed tomographic scan data with clinicopathological findings to build effective predictive models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207