ArticleCancer medicine2023
Predicting survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients with poor ECOG-PS: A single-arm prospective study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification of PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer: a predictive model for prognosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Establishment and validation of a survival prediction model for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Predictors of febrile neutropenia in small cell lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin: a focus on nutritional status, inflammation, and performance status.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Predicting survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients with poor ECOG-PS: A single-arm prospective study.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are a heterogeneous population with short lifespan. We aimed to develop methods to better differentiate patients whose survival was >90 days.
methodsWe evaluated 83 characteristics of 106 treatment-naïve, stage IV NSCLC patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) >1. Automated machine learning was used to select a model and optimize hyperparameters. 100-fold bootstrapping was performed for dimensionality reduction for a second ("lite") model. Performance was measured by C-statistic and accuracy metrics in an out-of-sample validation cohort. The "lite" model was validated on a second independent, prospective cohort (N = 42). Network analysis (NA) was performed to evaluate the differences in centrality and connectivity of features.
resultsThe selected method was ExtraTrees Classifier, with C-statistic of 0.82 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.81 (p = 0.01). The "lite" model had 16 variables and obtained C-statistic of 0.84 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.75 (p = 0.039) in the first cohort, and C-statistic of 0.706 (p < 0.01) and accuracy of 0.714 (p < 0.01) in the second cohort. The networks of patients with lower survival were more interconnected. Features related to cachexia, inflammation, and quality of life had statistically different prestige scores in NA.
conclusionsMachine learning can assist in the prognostic evaluation of advanced NSCLC. The model generated with a reduced number of features showed high accessibility and reasonable metrics. Features related to quality of life, cachexia, and performance status had increased correlation and importance scores, suggesting that they play a role at later disease stages, in line with the biological rationale already described.
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.