Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36003782›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Interpretable clinical visualization model for prediction of prognosis in osteosarcoma: a large cohort data study.

Wenle Li, Genyang Jin, Huitao Wu, Rilige Wu, Chan Xu, Bing Wang, Qiang Liu, Zhaohui Hu, Haosheng Wang, Shengtao Dong and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic review of 99 extremity bone malignancy survival prediction models.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Whole-Exome Analysis and Osteosarcoma: A Game Still Open.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors.

Wenle LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xianyang, China.
Genyang JinDepartment of Orthopedics, Hospital of People's Liberation Army of China (PLA), Wuxi, China.
Huitao WuIntelligent Healthcare Team, Baidu Inc., Beijing, China.
Rilige WuCollege of Information and Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Chan XuClinical Medical Research Center, Xianyang Central Hospital, Xianyang, China.
Bing WangClinical Medical Research Center, Xianyang Central Hospital, Xianyang, China.
Qiang LiuClinical Medical Research Center, Xianyang Central Hospital, Xianyang, China.
Zhaohui HuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Liuzhou People's Hospital, Liuzhou, China.
Haosheng WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Shengtao DongDepartment of Spine Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Zhi-Ri TangSchool of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Haiwen PengOrthopaedic Department, The Fourth Medical Center of People's Liberation Army of China (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xianyang, China.
Chengliang YinFaculty of Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, the clinical prediction model for patients with osteosarcoma was almost developed from single-center data, lacking external validation. Due to their low reliability and low predictive power, there were few clinical applications. Our study aimed to set up a clinical prediction model with stronger predictive ability, credibility, and clinical application value for osteosarcoma. Methods: Clinical information related to osteosarcoma patients from 2010 to 2016 was collected in the SEER database and four different Chinese medical centers. Factors were screened using three models (full subset regression, univariate Cox, and LASSO) Results: Eight predicting factors, namely, age, grade, laterality, stage M, surgery, bone metastases, lung metastases, and tumor size, were selected from the model based on the minimum AIC and maximum AUC value. The internal and external validation results showed that the model possessed good consistency. ROC curves revealed good predictive ability (AUC > 0.8 in both internal and external validation). The DCA results demonstrated that the model had an excellent clinical predicted utility in 3 years and 5 years for North American and Chinese patients. Conclusions: The clinical prediction model was built and visualized in this study, including a nomogram and a web calculator (https://dr-lee.shinyapps.io/osteosarcoma/), which indicated very good consistency, predictive power, and clinical application value.

Indexed as

multicenter studynomogramosteosarcomaprediction modelSEERweb calculator

Identifiers

PMID36003782
PMCPMC9394445

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.