Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36282174›Full record

ArticleeLife2022

Comprehensive machine-learning survival framework develops a consensus model in large-scale multicenter cohorts for pancreatic cancer.

Libo Wang, Zaoqu Liu, Ruopeng Liang, Weijie Wang, Rongtao Zhu, Jian Li, Zhe Xing, Siyuan Weng, Xinwei Han, Yu-Ling Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Libo Wang *Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3745-9459
Zaoqu Liu *Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0452-742X
Ruopeng Liang *Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Weijie WangDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Rongtao ZhuDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Jian LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Zhe XingDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Siyuan WengDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Xinwei HanDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4407-4864
Yu-Ling SunDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5289-4673
Zhengzhou University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CNFifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the most aggressive tumor, the outcome of pancreatic cancer (PACA) has not improved observably over the last decade. Anatomy-based TNM staging does not exactly identify treatment-sensitive patients, and an ideal biomarker is urgently needed for precision medicine. Based on expression files of 1280 patients from 10 multicenter cohorts, we screened 32 consensus prognostic genes. Ten machine-learning algorithms were transformed into 76 combinations, of which we selected the optimal algorithm to construct an artificial intelligence-derived prognostic signature (AIDPS) according to the average C-index in the nine testing cohorts. The results of the training cohort, nine testing cohorts, Meta-Cohort, and three external validation cohorts (290 patients) consistently indicated that AIDPS could accurately predict the prognosis of PACA. After incorporating several vital clinicopathological features and 86 published signatures, AIDPS exhibited robust and dramatically superior predictive capability. Moreover, in other prevalent digestive system tumors, the nine-gene AIDPS could still accurately stratify the prognosis. Of note, our AIDPS had important clinical implications for PACA, and patients with low AIDPS owned a dismal prognosis, higher genomic alterations, and denser immune cell infiltrates as well as were more sensitive to immunotherapy. Meanwhile, the high AIDPS group possessed observably prolonged survival, and panobinostat may be a potential agent for patients with high AIDPS. Overall, our study provides an attractive tool to further guide the clinical management and individualized treatment of PACA.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingPancreatic NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceBiomarkersConsensusHumansMachine LearningPanobinostatPractice Guidelines as TopicBiomarkersPanobinostatbiomarkercancer biologycomputational biologyhumanimmunotherapymachine learningmulti‐omicpancreatic cancersystems biology

Identifiers

PMID36282174
PMCPMC9596158
OpenAlexW4307368867

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.