Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33003533›Full record

ArticleCancers2020

Comparison of the Tree-Based Machine Learning Algorithms to Cox Regression in Predicting the Survival of Oral and Pharyngeal Cancers: Analyses Based on SEER Database.

Mi Du, Dandara G Haag, John W Lynch, Murthy N Mittinty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Predicting overall survival in anaplastic thyroid cancer using machine learning approaches.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mi DuSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 5005 Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2237-9918
Dandara G HaagSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 5005 Adelaide, Australia.
John W LynchSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 5005 Adelaide, Australia.
Murthy N MittintySchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 5005 Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to demonstrate the use of the tree-based machine learning algorithms to predict the 3- and 5-year disease-specific survival of oral and pharyngeal cancers (OPCs) and compare their performance with the traditional Cox regression. A total of 21,154 individuals diagnosed with OPCs between 2004 and 2009 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Three tree-based machine learning algorithms (survival tree (ST), random forest (RF) and conditional inference forest (CF)), together with a reference technique (Cox proportional hazard models (Cox)), were used to develop the survival prediction models. To handle the missing values in predictors, we applied the substantive model compatible version of the fully conditional specification imputation approach to the Cox model, whereas we used RF to impute missing data for the ST, RF and CF models. For internal validation, we used 10-fold cross-validation with 50 iterations in the model development datasets. Following this, model performance was evaluated using the C-index, integrated Brier score (IBS) and calibration curves in the test datasets. For predicting the 3-year survival of OPCs with the complete cases, the C-index in the development sets were 0.77 (0.77, 0.77), 0.70 (0.70, 0.70), 0.83 (0.83, 0.84) and 0.83 (0.83, 0.86) for Cox, ST, RF and CF, respectively. Similar results were observed in the 5-year survival prediction models, with C-index for Cox, ST, RF and CF being 0.76 (0.76, 0.76), 0.69 (0.69, 0.70), 0.83 (0.83, 0.83) and 0.85 (0.84, 0.86), respectively, in development datasets. The prediction error curves based on IBS showed a similar pattern for these models. The predictive performance remained unchanged in the analyses with imputed data. Additionally, a free web-based calculator was developed for potential clinical use. In conclusion, compared to Cox regression, ST had a lower and RF and CF had a higher predictive accuracy in predicting the 3- and 5-year OPCs survival using SEER data. The RF and CF algorithms provide non-parametric alternatives to Cox regression to be of clinical use for estimating the survival probability of OPCs patients.

Indexed as

forecastinghead and neckmouth neoplasmsoropharyngealsurvivability

Identifiers

PMID33003533
PMCPMC7600270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.