ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Deep-learning-based survival prediction of patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. 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.
- Machine learning prediction of overall survival in patients with primary gastrointestinal melanoma.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Development of PDAC diagnosis and prognosis evaluation models based on machine learning.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Comparison of deep learning-based recurrence-free survival with random survival forest and Cox proportional hazard models in Stage-I NSCLC patients.Cancer medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study obtained data on patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, and used a deep learning and neural network (DeepSurv) model to predict the survival rate of patients with CMM and evaluate its effectiveness. Methods: We collected information on patients with CMM between 2004 and 2015 from the SEER database. We then randomly divided the patients into training and testing cohorts at a 7:3 ratio. The likelihood that patients with CMM will survive was forecasted using the DeepSurv model, and its results were compared with those of the Cox proportional-hazards (CoxPH) model. The calibration curves, time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and concordance index (C-index) were used to assess the prediction abilities of the model. Results: This study comprised 37,758 patients with CMM: 26,430 in the training cohort and 11,329 in the testing cohort. The CoxPH model demonstrated that the survival of patients with CMM was significantly influenced by age, sex, marital status, summary stage, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, postoperative lymph node dissection, tumor size, and tumor extension. The C-index of the CoxPH model was 0.875. We also constructed the DeepSurv model using the data from the training cohort, and its C-index was 0.910. We examined how well the aforementioned two models predicted outcomes. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year AUCs were 0.928, 0.837, and 0.855, respectively, for the CoxPH model, and 0.971, 0.947, and 0.942 for the DeepSurv model. The DeepSurv model presented a greater predictive effect on patients with CMM, and its reliability was better than that of the CoxPH model according to both the AUC value and the calibration curve. Conclusion: The DeepSurv model, which we developed based on the data of patients with CMM in the SEER database, was found to be more effective than the CoxPH model in predicting the survival time of patients with CMM.
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.