ArticleCancer medicine2023
Prognostic risk factor of major salivary gland carcinomas and survival prediction model based on random survival forests.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognosing post-treatment outcomes of head and neck cancer using structured data and machine learning: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Liver Metastasis at Diagnosis and Overall Survival in Ovarian Cancer: A SEER-Based Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of treatment outcomes and quantitative analysis of contributing factors in fertility induction therapy for adolescent male patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Microbiome-based prediction of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcome.Genome medicine · 2025Article
- Explainable machine learning algorithm to predict cardiovascular event in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Review
- Machine learning-based survival prediction nomogram for postoperative parotid mucoepidermoid carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predicting mortality and recurrence in colorectal cancer: Comparative assessment of predictive models.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Prognostic risk factor of major salivary gland carcinomas and survival prediction model based on random survival forests.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- PTEN Deregulation Mechanisms in Salivary Gland Carcinomas.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisReview
- Impact of Amplified Oncogenes on Salivary Gland Carcinomas.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisReview
- Mutational Signatures in Salivary Gland Carcinomas.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Salivary gland malignancies are rare and are often acompanied by poor prognoses. So, identifying the populations with risk factors and timely intervention to avoid disease progression is significant. This study provides an effective prediction model to screen the target patients and is helpful to construct a cost-effective follow-up strategy. We enrolled 249 patients diagnosed with salivary gland tumors and analyzed prognostic risk factors using Cox proportional hazard univariable and multivariable regression models. The patients' data were split into training and validation sets on a 7:3 ratio, and the random survival forest (RSF) model was established using the training sets and validated using the validation sets. The maximally selected rank statistics method was used to determine a cut point value corresponding to the most significant relation with survival. Univariable Cox regression suggested age, smoking, alcohol consumption, untreated, neural invasion, capsular invasion, skin invasion, tumors larger than 4 cm, advanced T and N stage, distant metastasis, and non-mucous cell carcinoma were risk factors for poor prognosis, and multivariable analysis suggested that female, aging, smoking, untreated, and non-mucous cell carcinoma were risk factors. The time-dependent ROC curve showed the AUC of the RSF prediction model on 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival were 0.696, 0.779, and 0.765 respectively in the validation sets. Log-rank tests suggested that the cut point 7.42 risk score calculated from the RSF was most effective in dividing patients with significantly different prognoses. The prediction model based on the RSF could effectively screen patients with poor prognoses.
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.