ArticleScientific reports2021
A comparison of time to event analysis methods, using weight status and breast cancer as a case study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Random Survival Forest Versus Elastic-Net Regularized Cox Regression for Survival Prediction in Acute Myeloid Leukemia at Distinct Treatment Time Points: Model Performance Comparison Study.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Genetic insights into the timing of metastasis: a secondary analysis of the Count Me In metastatic breast cancer cohort.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Estimated health outcomes of breast cancer screening in the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program by race/ethnicity.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Review
- Age at Tumor Diagnosis in 14,636 Canine Cases from the Pathology-Based UNIPI Animal Cancer Registry, Italy: One Size Doesn't Fit All.Veterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Factors affecting the survival of prediabetic patients: comparison of Cox proportional hazards model and random survival forest method.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Survival analysis with cohort study data has been traditionally performed using Cox proportional hazards models. Random survival forests (RSFs), a machine learning method, now present an alternative method. Using the UK Women's Cohort Study (n = 34,493) we evaluate two methods: a Cox model and an RSF, to investigate the association between Body Mass Index and time to breast cancer incidence. Robustness of the models were assessed by cross validation and bootstraping. Histograms of bootstrap coefficients are reported. C-Indices and Integrated Brier Scores are reported for all models. In post-menopausal women, the Cox model Hazard Ratios (HR) for Overweight (OW) and Obese (O) were 1.25 (1.04, 1.51) and 1.28 (0.98, 1.68) respectively and the RSF Odds Ratios (OR) with partial dependence on menopause for OW and O were 1.34 (1.31, 1.70) and 1.45 (1.42, 1.48). HR are non-significant results. Only the RSF appears confident about the effect of weight status on time to event. Bootstrapping demonstrated Cox model coefficients can vary significantly, weakening interpretation potential. An RSF was used to produce partial dependence plots (PDPs) showing OW and O weight status increase the probability of breast cancer incidence in post-menopausal women. All models have relatively low C-Index and high Integrated Brier Score. The RSF overfits the data. In our study, RSF can identify complex non-proportional hazard type patterns in the data, and allow more complicated relationships to be investigated using PDPs, but it overfits limiting extrapolation of results to new instances. Moreover, it is less easily interpreted than Cox models. The value of survival analysis remains paramount and therefore machine learning techniques like RSF should be considered as another method for analysis.
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.