ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2019
Survival outcome prediction in cervical cancer: Cox models vs deep-learning model.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
88 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 185 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Machine Learning Techniques for Survival Analysis in Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Cervical cancer survival prediction by machine learning algorithms: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Application of Deep Learning in Cancer Prognosis Prediction Model.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Using deep learning to predict survival outcome in non-surgical cervical cancer patients based on pathological images.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Trial
- Prediction of Postoperative Pathologic Risk Factors in Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Hysterectomy by Machine Learning.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Trial
- Causality-Guided Machine Learning for Retinoblastoma Survival Prediction: Development and Comparative Evaluation Using SEER.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Risk prediction model of survival in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicenter Cohort study.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Empirical evaluation of variability and multi-institutional generalizability of deep learning survival models: application to renal cancer CT scans.Computers in biology and medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors associated with overall survival in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective cohort study in Western China comparing random survival forest and Cox proportional hazards models.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Deep Learning and Attention Mechanism-based Prediction of Vaginal Invasion in Early-Stage Cervical CancerCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of an integrated immune-inflammatory phenotype in surgically treated cervical cancer: survival modeling and immunohistochemical validation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Survival Period Prediction in Cervical Cancer Patients Using the Selective Stacking Technique.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Predictive modeling for cervical cancer: existing AI approaches and the emerging role of vaginal microbiome.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a deep learning model for individualized survival prediction in advanced cervical cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Diabetes is causally associated with increased breast cancer mortality by inducing FIBCD1 to activate MCM5-mediated cell cycle arrest via modulating H3K27ac.Cell death & disease · 2025Article
- Machine and Deep Learning for the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Cervical Cancer: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pan-cancer predictive survival model development and evaluation using electronic health record and genetic data across 10 cancer types.Discover oncology · 2025Article
28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, the Cox proportional hazard regression model has been the mainstay for survival analyses in oncologic research. The Cox proportional hazard regression model generally is used based on an assumption of linear association. However, it is likely that, in reality, there are many clinicopathologic features that exhibit a nonlinear association in biomedicine.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the deep-learning neural network model and the Cox proportional hazard regression model in the prediction of survival in women with cervical cancer. STUDY
designThis was a retrospective pilot study of consecutive cases of newly diagnosed stage I-IV cervical cancer from 2000-2014. A total of 40 features that included patient demographics, vital signs, laboratory test results, tumor characteristics, and treatment types were assessed for analysis and grouped into 3 feature sets. The deep-learning neural network model was compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model and 3 other survival analysis models for progression-free survival and overall survival. Mean absolute error and concordance index were used to assess the performance of these 5 models.
resultsThere were 768 women included in the analysis. The median age was 49 years, and the majority were Hispanic (71.7%). The majority of tumors were squamous (75.3%) and stage I (48.7%). The median follow-up time was 40.2 months; there were 241 events for recurrence and progression and 170 deaths during the follow-up period. The deep-learning model showed promising results in the prediction of progression-free survival when compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model (mean absolute error, 29.3 vs 316.2). The deep-learning model also outperformed all the other models, including the Cox proportional hazard regression model, for overall survival (mean absolute error, Cox proportional hazard regression vs deep-learning, 43.6 vs 30.7). The performance of the deep-learning model further improved when more features were included (concordance index for progression-free survival: 0.695 for 20 features, 0.787 for 36 features, and 0.795 for 40 features). There were 10 features for progression-free survival and 3 features for overall survival that demonstrated significance only in the deep-learning model, but not in the Cox proportional hazard regression model. There were no features for progression-free survival and 3 features for overall survival that demonstrated significance only in the Cox proportional hazard regression model, but not in the deep-learning model.
conclusionOur study suggests that the deep-learning neural network model may be a useful analytic tool for survival prediction in women with cervical cancer because it exhibited superior performance compared with the Cox proportional hazard regression model. This novel analytic approach may provide clinicians with meaningful survival information that potentially could be integrated into treatment decision-making and planning. Further validation studies are necessary to support this pilot study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.