Evidence Hub

Machine learning applications in predicting pharmacological treatment outcomes and responses in esophageal cancer

Yan Z, Zhou Y, Jia S, Ung COL, Song M, Lai Y, Hu H, Yang Y

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026

14,342 participants

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated machine learning (ML) models predicting esophageal cancer (EC) treatment outcomes, focusing on data modalities, feature engineering, model frameworks, and validation.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024619947), six databases (2015-2024) were systematically searched. Two reviewers independently extracted data on model methodologies and performance. Study quality was assessed using a modified TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) + AI checklist.

Results: Among 30 studies (14,342 patients), classical ML models were the most frequently employed approach (n = 43), followed by ensemble methods (n = 34), with deep learning being the least utilized (n = 11); however, the best-performing models across all studies demonstrated mean AUC values of 0.847 for deep learning, 0.835 for ensemble models, and 0.816 for classical approaches. Imaging and clinical data constituted the predominant both unimodal and multimodal modeling inputs, with supervised learning representing the dominant paradigm. Multimodal models achieved a significantly higher AUC (0.84 vs. 0.78) than single-modal models. Model validation primarily relied on k-fold cross-validation and external cohort approaches. Quality assessment showed moderate reporting completeness (64.79% median fulfillment).

Discussion: While ML (particularly deep learning and multimodal approaches) demonstrated potential for EC…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 14,342 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free