Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36848085›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Predicting the Survival of Patients With Cancer From Their Initial Oncology Consultation Document Using Natural Language Processing.

John-Jose Nunez, Bonnie Leung, Cheryl Ho, Alan T Bates, Raymond T Ng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advancements in Cancer Survival Prediction: A Systematic Review of Classical and Modern Approaches.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

John-Jose NunezBC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Bonnie LeungBC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Cheryl HoBC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Alan T BatesBC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Raymond T NgDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Predicting short- and long-term survival of patients with cancer may improve their care. Prior predictive models either use data with limited availability or predict the outcome of only 1 type of cancer. Objective: To investigate whether natural language processing can predict survival of patients with general cancer from a patient's initial oncologist consultation document. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study used data from 47 625 of 59 800 patients who started cancer care at any of the 6 BC Cancer sites located in the province of British Columbia between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. Mortality data were updated until April 6, 2022, and data were analyzed from update until September 30, 2022. All patients with a medical or radiation oncologist consultation document generated within 180 days of diagnosis were included; patients seen for multiple cancers were excluded. Exposures: Initial oncologist consultation documents were analyzed using traditional and neural language models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the performance of the predictive models, including balanced accuracy and receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC). The secondary outcome was investigating what words the models used. Results: Of the 47 625 patients in the sample, 25 428 (53.4%) were female and 22 197 (46.6%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 64.9 (13.7) years. A total of 41 447 patients (87.0%) survived 6 months, 31 143 (65.4%) survived 36 months, and 27 880 (58.5%) survived 60 months, calculated from their initial oncologist consultation. The best models achieved a balanced accuracy of 0.856 (AUC, 0.928) for predicting 6-month survival, 0.842 (AUC, 0.918) for 36-month survival, and 0.837 (AUC, 0.918) for 60-month survival, on a holdout test set. Differences in what words were important for predicting 6- vs 60-month survival were found. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that models performed comparably with or better than previous models predicting cancer survival and that they may be able to predict survival using readily available data without focusing on 1 cancer type.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingNeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36848085
PMCPMC9972192

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.