Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34657597›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Random survival forests for dynamic predictions of a time-to-event outcome using a longitudinal biomarker.

Kaci L Pickett, Krithika Suresh, Kristen R Campbell, Scott Davis, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. DyVAESurv: A VAE-Enhanced Model for Dynamic Survival Analysis.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Kaci L PickettDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA.
Krithika SureshDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA. krithika.suresh@cuanschutz.edu.
Kristen R CampbellDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA.
Scott DavisDivision of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA.
Elizabeth Juarez-ColungaDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, 80045, Colorado, USA.

Funding

NIH Prior Approval Process ProfessionalUL1TR002535 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2018 to 2022
$51.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models for time-to-event outcomes play a vital role in personalized decision-making. A patient's biomarker values, such as medical lab results, are often measured over time but traditional prediction models ignore their longitudinal nature, using only baseline information. Dynamic prediction incorporates longitudinal information to produce updated survival predictions during follow-up. Existing methods for dynamic prediction include joint modeling, which often suffers from computational complexity and poor performance under misspecification, and landmarking, which has a straightforward implementation but typically relies on a proportional hazards model. Random survival forests (RSF), a machine learning algorithm for time-to-event outcomes, can capture complex relationships between the predictors and survival without requiring prior specification and has been shown to have superior predictive performance.

methodsWe propose an alternative approach for dynamic prediction using random survival forests in a landmarking framework. With a simulation study, we compared the predictive performance of our proposed method with Cox landmarking and joint modeling in situations where the proportional hazards assumption does not hold and the longitudinal marker(s) have a complex relationship with the survival outcome. We illustrated the use of the RSF landmark approach in two clinical applications to assess the performance of various RSF model building decisions and to demonstrate its use in obtaining dynamic predictions.

resultsIn simulation studies, RSF landmarking outperformed joint modeling and Cox landmarking when a complex relationship between the survival and longitudinal marker processes was present. It was also useful in application when there were several predictors for which the clinical relevance was unknown and multiple longitudinal biomarkers were present. Individualized dynamic predictions can be obtained from this method and the variable importance metric is useful for examining the changing predictive power of variables over time. In addition, RSF landmarking is easily implementable in standard software and using suggested specifications requires less computation time than joint modeling.

conclusionsRSF landmarking is a nonparametric, machine learning alternative to current methods for obtaining dynamic predictions when there are complex or unknown relationships present. It requires little upfront decision-making and has comparable predictive performance and has preferable computational speed.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningBiomarkersComputer SimulationHumansProportional Hazards ModelsBiomarkersArea under the curveJoint modelingLandmarkingPrediction accuracyVariable importance

Identifiers

PMID34657597
PMCPMC8520610

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.