ArticleCancers2022
External Validation of the Individualized Prediction of Breast Cancer Survival (IPBS) Model for Estimating Survival after Surgery for Patients with Breast Cancer in Northern Thailand.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The individualized prediction of breast cancer survival (IPBS) model was recently developed. Although the model showed acceptable performance during derivation, its external performance remained unknown. This study aimed to validate the IPBS model using the data of breast cancer patients in Northern Thailand. An external validation study was conducted based on female patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai hospital from 2005 to 2015. Data on IPBS predictors were collected. The endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration. Missing data were handled with multiple imputation. Of all 3581 eligible patients, 1868 were included. The 5-year OS and DFS were 85.2% and 81.9%. The IPBS model showed acceptable discrimination: C-statistics 0.706 to 0.728 for OS and 0.675 to 0.689 for DFS at 5 years. However, the IPBS model minimally overestimated both OS and DFS predictions. These overestimations were corrected after model recalibration. In this external validation study, the IPBS model exhibited good discriminative ability. Although it may provide minimal overestimation, recalibrating the model to the local context is a practical solution to improve the model calibration.
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.