ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2023
Visualized machine learning models combined with propensity score matching analysis in single PR-positive breast cancer prognosis: a multicenter population-based study.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- ERFrontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Random survival forest predicts survival in patients with metastatic laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer and the prognostic benefits of surgery and radiotherapy.Journal of Cancer · 2025Article
- Development and validation of novel machine learning-based prognostic models and propensity score matching for comparison of surgical approaches in mucinous breast cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Novel models by machine learning to predict the risk of cardiac disease-specific death in young patients with breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Machine learning predicts the risk of osteoporosis in patients with breast cancer and healthy women.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The characteristics of single PR-positive (ER-PR+, sPR+) breast cancer (BC) and its prognosis are not well elucidated due to its rarity and conflicting evidence. There is a lack of an accurate and efficient model for predicting survival, thereby rendering treatment challenging for clinicians. Whether endocrine therapy should be intensified in sPR+ BC patients was another controversial clinical topic. We constructed and cross-validated XGBoost models that showed high precision and accuracy in predicting the survival of patients with sPR+ BC cases (1-year: AUC=0.904; 3-year: AUC=0.847; 5-year: AUC=0.824). The F1 score for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year models were 0.91, 0.88, and 0.85, respectively. The models exhibited superior performance in an external, independent dataset (1-year: AUC=0.889; 3-year: AUC=0.846; 5-year: AUC=0.821). Further, intensified endocrine therapy did not provide a significant overall survival benefit compared to initial or no endocrine therapy (P=0.600, HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 0.35-6.17). Propensity-score matching (PSM)-adjusted data showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the prognosis between ER-PR+HER2+ and ER-PR-HER2+ BC. Patients having the ER-PR+HER2- subtype had a slightly worse prognosis than those with the ER-PR-HER2- subtype. In conclusion, XGBoost models can be highly reproducible and effective in predicting survival in patients with sPR+ BC. Our findings revealed that patients with sPR-positive BC may not benefit from endocrine therapy. Patients with sPR+ BC may benefit from intensive adjuvant chemotherapy compared to endocrine therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37424799PMC10326595What 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.