ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022
Predicting prognosis for patients with ESCC before surgery by SVMs ranking with nomogram analyses.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and validation of esophageal cancer prediction model based on DeepSurv model: A cohort study.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA SVM predictive model consisting of preoperative tumor markers and inflammatory factors was established to explore its significance in evaluating the prognosis of patients with ESCC.
methodsClinical data of 311 patients with ESCC who underwent surgery were collected and followed up until October 2019. Statistical software SPSS version 22.0, and R (version 3.6.1) were used to analyze the data.
resultsIn the Test, Val1 and Val2 groups, the sensitivity of preoperative optimal combination (SVM5) to predict the prognosis of patients with ESCC was 88.89%, 76.92%, and 73.68%, respectively. The specificity was 92.00%, 74.42%, and 78.00%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were not statistically different from those of SVM9 (P > 0.05), while the sensitivity of SVM9+5 for predicting the prognosis of patients with ESCC was 91.84%, 82.26%, and 80.36%, respectively. The specificity was 97.44%, 75.93%, and 78.00%, respectively. Its sensitivity and specificity were higher than those of SVM9 (P < 0.001).
conclusionsWe used a nomogram to input the indicators in the SVM5 into the artificial intelligence program for patients with ESCC who have not yet developed an individualized plan. It can predict and evaluate the postoperative outcome of patients with ESCC with a sensitivity of 79.04%, specificity of 81.82%, PPV of 83.54%, NPV of 76.97%, and accuracy of 80.32%. For patients who have undergone surgery, we can enter the indicators in SVM9+5 into the artificial intelligence program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36105015PMC9452329What 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.