PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 22, 2026Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine1 citations

Machine Learning for Predicting Malignant Transformation in Actinic Cheilitis: A Prognostic Support System Based on Demographic and Clinical Descriptors

View Full Paper
ICIvan José Correia‐NetoACAlex Franco da CostaAAAnna Luíza Damaceno Araújo

Key Points

  • The aim is to create and evaluate machine learning models for predicting malignant transformation in actinic cheilitis patients.
  • Documented data from 340 patients with actinic cheilitis, balancing dataset with adaptive synthetic sampling.
  • Trained and tested four supervised machine learning classifiers using 5-fold cross-validation.
  • Used SHAP values to pinpoint influential predictors of malignant transformation.
  • Xtreme Gradient Boosting achieved 96.72% accuracy, outperforming other models.
  • Multilayer Perceptron had the best sensitivity at 98.44%.
  • Ulceration, multifocality, and long-standing lesions were identified as strong predictors of malignant transformation.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to develop and evaluate Machine Learning models to predict the malignant transformation (MT) in patients with actinic cheilitis (AC). Methods Three hundred forty patients diagnosed with AC (322 in the no MT group, and 18 in the MT group) were carefully documented. The study used the Adaptive Synthetic Sampling to adaptively balance the dataset (322 in the no MT group and 319 in the MT group). Four supervised Machine Learning classifiers (Random Forest, Xtreme Gradient Boosting, Multilayer Perceptron, and Support Vector Machine) were trained and tested using 5‐fold cross‐validation to correlate inputs (clinical descriptors and demographic data) to outputs (MT). SHAP values were used to identify the most influential predictors of MT. Results The Xtreme Gradient Boosting model stood out, achieving 96.72% accuracy, 96.87% sensitivity, 96.57% specificity, 96.61% precision, 96.73% of F1‐Score, and 0.9498 AUC. Multilayer Perceptron showed the best sensitivity (98.44%), and Random Forest presented comparable results. In contrast, Support Vector Machine underperformed, with higher values of false negatives and false positives. Across models, ulceration, multifocality, and long‐standing lesions were the strongest predictors of MT, while small, asymptomatic, or solitary lesions were associated with lower risk. Conclusion The results revealed promising performance metrics for Xtreme Gradient Boosting and Multilayer Perceptron suggesting their potential value as tools in a support system for monitoring AC. Additionally, synthetic data proved constructive in training, enhancing the models' robustness and predictive capabilities.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Correia‐Neto et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6971bdcf642b1836717e2703https://doi.org/10.1111/jop.70113
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A digital score of peri‐epithelial lymphocytic activity predicts malignant transformation in oral epithelial dysplasia2023 · 35 citations
  2. 2Better Reporting of Studies on Artificial Intelligence: CONSORT-AI and Beyond2021 · 37 citations
  3. 3Actinic Cheilitis: Clinical and Histological Features2008 · 174 citations
  4. 4Random Forests2001 · 131,455 citations
  5. 5Prediction of postoperative recurrence of oral cancer by artificial intelligence model: Multilayer perceptron2023 · 19 citations