ArticleScientific reports2022
Interpretable prognostic modeling of endometrial cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovations in biomarker stratification for precision oncology.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Prognostic Role of L1CAM in Endometrial Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Identification of Important Diagnostic Genes in the Uterine Using Bioinformatics and Machine Learning.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
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
Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is one of the most common gynecological cancers in the world. In this work we apply Cox proportional hazards (CPH) and optimal survival tree (OST) algorithms to the retrospective prognostic modeling of disease-specific survival in 842 EC patients. We demonstrate that linear CPH models are preferred for the EC risk assessment based on clinical features alone, while interpretable, non-linear OST models are favored when patient profiles can be supplemented with additional biomarker data. We show how visually interpretable tree models can help generate and explore novel research hypotheses by studying the OST decision path structure, in which L1 cell adhesion molecule expression and estrogen receptor status are correctly indicated as important risk factors in the p53 abnormal EC subgroup. To aid further clinical adoption of advanced machine learning techniques, we stress the importance of quantifying model discrimination and calibration performance in the development of explainable clinical prediction models.
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.