ArticleNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2023
[Efficacy of machine learning models
Article in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of machine learning models and traditional Cox regression model in predicting postoperative outcomes of patients with esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (AEG).
methodsThis study was conducted among 203 AEG patients with complete clinical and follow-up data, who were treated in our hospital between September, 2015 and October, 2020. The clinicopathological data of the patients were processed for analysis using R language package and divided into training and validation datasets at the ratio of 3:1. The Cox proportional hazards regression model and 4 machine learning models were constructed for analyzing the datasets. ROC curves, calibration curves and clinical decision curves (DCA) were plotted. Internal validation of the machine learning models was performed to assess their predictive efficacy. The predictive performance of each model was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), and the model fitting was assessed using the calibration curve.
resultsFor predicting 3-year survival based on the validation dataset, the AUC was 0.870 for Cox proportional hazard regression model, 0.901 for eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), 0.791 for random forest, 0.832 for support vector machine, and 0.725 for multilayer perceptron; For predicting 5-year survival, the AUCs of these models were 0.915, 0.916, 0.758, 0.905, and 0.737, respectively. For internal validation, the AUCs of the 4 machine learning models decreased in the order of XGBoost (0.818), random forest (0.758), support vector machine (0.0.804), and multilayer perceptron (0.745).
conclusionThe machine learning models show better predictive efficacy for survival outcomes of patients with AEG than Cox proportional hazard regression model, especially when proportional odds assumption or linear regression models are not applicable. XGBoost models have better performance than the other machine learning models, and the multi-layer perception model may have poor fitting results for a limited data volume.
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.