ArticleGenomics & informatics2022
Comparison of survival prediction models for pancreatic cancer: Cox model versus machine learning models.
Article in Genomics & informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review on Machine Learning Techniques for Survival Analysis in Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of machine learning methods versus traditional Cox regression for survival prediction in cancer using real-world data: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting 5-Year Mortality in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using the Korean Central Cancer Registry: Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Advancing Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk Prediction With Patient-Centered Machine Learning: Machine Learning Modeling Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Predicting incident type 2 diabetes using wearable activity and polygenic risk: A survival-modeling study in All of Us.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- High-dimensional machine learning models for prediction of heart failure in more than 400 000 men and women from the UK Biobank.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Models for Pancreatic Cancer Survival Prediction: A Multi-Model Analysis Across Stages and Treatments Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Expert Judgment Supporting a Bayesian Network to Model the Survival of Pancreatic Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2025Article
- Yang-deficiency constitution drives poor outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma by modulating the tumour immune microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- One-year survival prediction models following ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A comparative analysis of the Cox Frailty Model and machine learning.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Long-term exposure to particulate matter was associated with increased dementia risk using both traditional approaches and novel machine learning methods.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for survival risk stratification after esophageal cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A survival prediction model has recently been developed to evaluate the prognosis of resected nonmetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on a Cox model using two nationwide databases: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) and Korea Tumor Registry System-Biliary Pancreas (KOTUS-BP). In this study, we applied two machine learning methods-random survival forests (RSF) and support vector machines (SVM)-for survival analysis and compared their prediction performance using the SEER and KOTUS-BP datasets. Three schemes were used for model development and evaluation. First, we utilized data from SEER for model development and used data from KOTUS-BP for external evaluation. Second, these two datasets were swapped by taking data from KOTUS-BP for model development and data from SEER for external evaluation. Finally, we mixed these two datasets half and half and utilized the mixed datasets for model development and validation. We used 9,624 patients from SEER and 3,281 patients from KOTUS-BP to construct a prediction model with seven covariates: age, sex, histologic differentiation, adjuvant treatment, resection margin status, and the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition T-stage and N-stage. Comparing the three schemes, the performance of the Cox model, RSF, and SVM was better when using the mixed datasets than when using the unmixed datasets. When using the mixed datasets, the C-index, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year time-dependent areas under the curve for the Cox model were 0.644, 0.698, 0.680, and 0.687, respectively. The Cox model performed slightly better than RSF and SVM.
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.