ArticleJAMA network open2022
Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global performance of machine learning models to predict all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Prognostic models for survival predictions in advanced cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Review
- Externally validated and clinically useful machine learning algorithms to support patient-related decision-making in oncology: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Breast cancer: pathogenesis and treatments.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence innovations in neurosurgical oncology: a narrative review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Patterns of care at the end of life: a retrospective study of Italian patients with advanced breast cancer.BMC palliative care · 2024Observational
- Towards proactive palliative care in oncology: developing an explainable EHR-based machine learning model for mortality risk prediction.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Identifying potential (re)hemorrhage among sporadic cerebral cavernous malformations using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Looking Beyond Mortality Prediction: Primary Care Physician Views of Patients' Palliative Care Needs Predicted by a Machine Learning Tool.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of an Interface Design to Communicate Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognosis for Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- A study of machine learning to predict NRDS severity based on lung ultrasound score and clinical indicators.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Design of an interface to communicate artificial intelligence-based prognosis for patients with advanced solid tumors: a user-centered approach.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Implementing a Serious Illness Risk Prediction Model: Impact on Goals of Care Documentation.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2023Article
- Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A Retrospective Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Nanoliposomal Irinotecan in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluating Listening Performance for COVID-19 Detection by Clinicians and Machine Learning: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Advanced Care Planning for Hospitalized Patients Following Clinician Notification of Patient Mortality by a Machine Learning Algorithm.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: To date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown. Objective: To compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days. Exposures: Three-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers. Results: A total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.
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.