ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Development and validation of a machine learning model for survival risk stratification after esophageal cancer surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. 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.
- Interpretable machine learning models to predict survival in esophageal cancer: a study based on the SEER database and external validation in China.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy in cancer diagnosis and prognosis: a paradigm shift in precision oncology.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Prediction of five-year survival among esophageal cancer patients using machine learning.Heliyon · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prediction of prognosis for patients with esophageal cancer(EC) is beneficial for their postoperative clinical decision-making. This study's goal was to create a dependable machine learning (ML) model for predicting the prognosis of patients with EC after surgery. Methods: The files of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) of the thoracic segment from China who received radical surgery for EC were analyzed. The data were separated into training and test sets, and prognostic risk variables were identified in the training set using univariate and multifactor COX regression. Based on the screened features, training and validation of five ML models were carried out through nested cross-validation (nCV). The performance of each model was evaluated using Area under the curve (AUC), accuracy(ACC), and F1-Score, and the optimum model was chosen as the final model for risk stratification and survival analysis in order to build a valid model for predicting the prognosis of patients with EC after surgery. Results: This study enrolled 810 patients with thoracic ESCC. 6 variables were ultimately included for modeling. Five ML models were trained and validated. The XGBoost model was selected as the optimum for final modeling. The XGBoost model was trained, optimized, and tested (AUC = 0.855; 95% CI, 0.808-0.902). Patients were separated into three risk groups. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were found among all three groups for both the training and test sets. Conclusions: A ML model that was highly practical and reliable for predicting the prognosis of patients with EC after surgery was established, and an application to facilitate clinical utility was developed.
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.