Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875798›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2021

Interpretable survival prediction for colorectal cancer using deep learning.

Ellery Wulczyn, David F Steiner, Melissa Moran, Markus Plass, Robert Reihs, Fraser Tan, Isabelle Flament-Auvigne, Trissia Brown, Peter Regitnig, Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

116 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

23 authors.

Ellery WulczynGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
David F SteinerGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Melissa MoranGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Markus PlassMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2718-7648
Robert ReihsMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8439-3689
Fraser TanGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Isabelle Flament-AuvigneGoogle Health via Advanced Clinical.
Trissia BrownGoogle Health via Advanced Clinical.
Peter RegitnigMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-1595
Po-Hsuan Cameron ChenGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0083-4991
Narayan HegdeGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Apaar SadhwaniGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Robert MacDonaldGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Benny AyalewGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Greg S CorradoGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Lily H PengGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Daniel TseGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-8539
Heimo MüllerMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9691-4872
Zhaoyang XuGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Yun LiuGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA. liuyun@google.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4079-8275
Martin C StumpeGoogle Health via Advanced Clinical.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1402-6749
Kurt Zatloukal *Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5299-7218
Craig H Mermel *Google Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA. kurt.zatloukal@medunigraz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0816-3395

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deriving interpretable prognostic features from deep-learning-based prognostic histopathology models remains a challenge. In this study, we developed a deep learning system (DLS) for predicting disease-specific survival for stage II and III colorectal cancer using 3652 cases (27,300 slides). When evaluated on two validation datasets containing 1239 cases (9340 slides) and 738 cases (7140 slides), respectively, the DLS achieved a 5-year disease-specific survival AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.72), and added significant predictive value to a set of nine clinicopathologic features. To interpret the DLS, we explored the ability of different human-interpretable features to explain the variance in DLS scores. We observed that clinicopathologic features such as T-category, N-category, and grade explained a small fraction of the variance in DLS scores (R

Identifiers

PMID33875798
PMCPMC8055695

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.