ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Bi-Centric Independent Validation of Outcome Prediction after Radioembolization of Primary and Secondary Liver Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYttrium-90 radioembolization (RE) plays an important role in the treatment of liver malignancies. Optimal patient selection is crucial for an effective and safe treatment. In this study, we aim to validate the prognostic performance of a previously established random survival forest (RSF) with an external validation cohort from a different national center. Furthermore, we compare outcome prediction models with different established metrics.
methodsA previously established RSF model, trained on a consecutive cohort of 366 patients who had received RE due to primary or secondary liver tumor at a national center (center 1), was used to predict the outcome of an independent consecutive cohort of 202 patients from a different national center (center 2) and vice versa. Prognostic performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and the integrated Brier score (IBS). The prognostic importance of designated baseline parameters was measured with the minimal depth concept, and the influence on the predicted outcome was analyzed with accumulated local effects plots. RSF values were compared to conventional cox proportional hazards models in terms of C-index and IBS.
resultsThe established RSF model achieved a C-index of 0.67 for center 2, comparable to the results obtained for center 1, which it was trained on (0.66). The RSF model trained on center 2 achieved a C-index of 0.68 on center 2 data and 0.66 on center 1 data. CPH models showed comparable results on both cohorts, with C-index ranging from 0.68 to 0.72. IBS validation showed more differentiated results depending on which cohort was trained on and which cohort was predicted (range: 0.08 to 0.20). Baseline cholinesterase was the most important variable for survival prediction.
conclusionThe previously developed predictive RSF model was successfully validated with an independent external cohort. C-index and IBS are suitable metrics to compare outcome prediction models, with IBS showing more differentiated results. The findings corroborate that survival after RE is critically determined by functional hepatic reserve and thus baseline liver function should play a key role in patient selection.
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.