Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37309655›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2023

Prediction Model for Postoperative Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors Along the Survivorship Trajectory From Pretreatment to 5 Years: Machine Learning-Based Analysis.

Danbee Kang, Hyunsoo Kim, Juhee Cho, Zero Kim, Myungjin Chung, Jeong Eon Lee, Seok Jin Nam, Seok Won Kim, Jonghan Yu, Byung Joo Chae and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Predicting health-related quality of life for patients with gastroesophageal cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Danbee Kang *Department of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0244-7714
Hyunsoo Kim *Department of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5241-289X
Juhee ChoDepartment of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9081-0266
Zero KimMedical AI Research Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7104-3943
Myungjin ChungMedical AI Research Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6271-3343
Jeong Eon LeeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0037-2456
Seok Jin NamDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1072-8954
Seok Won KimDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6130-7570
Jonghan YuDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9546-100X
Byung Joo ChaeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1564-0978
Jai Min RyuDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5405-7385
Se Kyung LeeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1630-1783
Samsung Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cause of cancer death in women. Although survival rates have improved, unmet psychosocial needs remain challenging because the quality of life (QoL) and QoL-related factors change over time. In addition, traditional statistical models have limitations in identifying factors associated with QoL over time, particularly concerning the physical, psychological, economic, spiritual, and social dimensions.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify patient-centered factors associated with QoL among patients with breast cancer using a machine learning (ML) algorithm to analyze data collected along different survivorship trajectories.

methodsThe study used 2 data sets. The first data set was the cross-sectional survey data from the Breast Cancer Information Grand Round for Survivorship (BIG-S) study, which recruited consecutive breast cancer survivors who visited the outpatient breast cancer clinic at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Korea, between 2018 and 2019. The second data set was the longitudinal cohort data from the Beauty Education for Distressed Breast Cancer (BEST) cohort study, which was conducted at 2 university-based cancer hospitals in Seoul, Korea, between 2011 and 2016. QoL was measured using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 questionnaire. Feature importance was interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The final model was selected based on the highest mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The analyses were performed using the Python 3.7 programming environment (Python Software Foundation).

resultsThe study included 6265 breast cancer survivors in the training data set and 432 patients in the validation set. The mean age was 50.6 (SD 8.66) years and 46.8% (n=2004) had stage 1 cancer. In the training data set, 48.3% (n=3026) of survivors had poor QoL. The study developed ML models for QoL prediction based on 6 algorithms. Performance was good for all survival trajectories: overall (AUC 0.823), baseline (AUC 0.835), within 1 year (AUC 0.860), between 2 and 3 years (AUC 0.808), between 3 and 4 years (AUC 0.820), and between 4 and 5 years (AUC 0.826). Emotional and physical functions were the most important features before surgery and within 1 year after surgery, respectively. Fatigue was the most important feature between 1 and 4 years. Despite the survival period, hopefulness was the most influential feature on QoL. External validation of the models showed good performance with AUCs between 0.770 and 0.862.

conclusionsThe study identified important factors associated with QoL among breast cancer survivors across different survival trajectories. Understanding the changing trends of these factors could help to intervene more precisely and timely, and potentially prevent or alleviate QoL-related issues for patients. The good performance of our ML models in both training and external validation sets suggests the potential use of this approach in identifying patient-centered factors and improving survivorship care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSurvivorsSurvivorshipalgorithmbreast cancerbreast cancer survivorcancerdevelopmachine learningmodeloncologypredictQoLquality of lifesurvivortrajectory

Identifiers

PMID37309655
PMCPMC10485708
OpenAlexW4380423257

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.