ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019
Claims-Based Approach to Predict Cause-Specific Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations for selecting and implementing comorbidity indices when using secondary data sources: a guide for health researchers.International journal of population data science · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-based personalized clinical decision-making for patients with localized prostate cancer: surgery versus radiotherapy.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Using health insurance claims data to assess long-term disease progression in a prostate cancer cohort.The Prostate · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a life expectancy calculator for US patients with prostate cancer.BJU international · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Artificial Intelligence Model to Predict 10-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality.Cancers · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Use of Cancer Registry Data for Comparative Effectiveness Research.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTreatment decisions about localized prostate cancer depend on accurate estimation of the patient's life expectancy. Current cancer and noncancer survival models use a limited number of predefined variables, which could restrict their predictive capability. We explored a technique to create more comprehensive survival prediction models using insurance claims data from a large administrative data set. These data contain substantial information about medical diagnoses and procedures, and thus may provide a broader reflection of each patient's health.
methodsWe identified 57,011 Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2009. We constructed separate cancer survival and noncancer survival prediction models using a training data set and assessed performance on a test data set. Potential model inputs included clinical and demographic covariates, and 8,971 distinct insurance claim codes describing comorbid diseases, procedures, surgeries, and diagnostic tests. We used a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator technique to identify predictive variables in the final survival models. Each model's predictive capacity was compared with existing survival models with a metric of explained randomness (ρ
resultsOur noncancer survival model included 143 covariates and had improved survival prediction (ρ
conclusionSurvival prediction models using high-dimensional variable selection techniques applied to claims data show promise, particularly with noncancer survival prediction. After further validation, these analyses could inform clinical decisions for men with prostate cancer.
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.