ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Development and validation of a deep learning model to predict survival of patients with esophageal cancer.
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning applications in predicting pharmacological treatment outcomes and responses in esophageal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning applications in the detection and treatment of esophageal cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- AI in esophageal cancer: advances, barriers to clinical translation, and perspectives for digital health.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- A novel framework for esophageal cancer grading: combining CT imaging, radiomics, reproducibility, and deep learning insights.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Externally validated and clinically useful machine learning algorithms to support patient-related decision-making in oncology: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Automatic segmentation of esophageal cancer, metastatic lymph nodes and their adjacent structures in CTA images based on the UperNet Swin network.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based identification of esophageal cancer subtypes through analysis of high-resolution histopathology images.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence: clinical applications and future advancement in gastrointestinal cancers.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Predicting overall survival in chordoma patients using machine learning models: a web-app application.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Neural network-based prognostic predictive tool for gastric cardiac cancer: the worldwide retrospective study.BioData mining · 2023Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for predicting prognosis and guiding individualized postoperative chemotherapy: A real-world study of distal cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models to predict survival of patients with resected stage-III NSCLC.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of a deep learning survival network with the tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging system in survival prediction and test the reliability of individual treatment recommendations provided by the network. Methods: In this population-based cohort study, we developed and validated a deep learning survival model using consecutive cases of newly diagnosed stage I to IV esophageal cancer between January 2004 and December 2015 in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The model was externally validated in an independent cohort from Fujian Provincial Hospital. The C statistic was used to compare the performance of the deep learning survival model and TNM staging system. Two other deep learning risk prediction models were trained for treatment recommendations. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to compare survival between the population that followed the recommended therapy and those who did not. Results: A total of 9069 patients were included in this study. The deep learning network showed more promising results in predicting esophageal cancer-specific survival than the TNM stage in the internal test dataset (C-index=0.753 vs. 0.638) and external validation dataset (C-index=0.687 vs. 0.643). The population who received the recommended treatments had superior survival compared to those who did not, based on the internal test dataset (hazard ratio, 0.753; 95% CI, 0.556-0.987; P=0.042) and the external validation dataset (hazard ratio, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.459-0.834; P=0.0003). Conclusion: Deep learning neural networks have potential advantages over traditional linear models in prognostic assessment and treatment recommendations. This novel analytical approach may provide reliable information on individual survival and treatment recommendations for patients with esophageal cancer.
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.