Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37598277›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Machine learning‑based prediction of survival prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Kaijiong Zhang, Bo Ye, Lichun Wu, Sujiao Ni, Yang Li, Qifeng Wang, Peng Zhang, Dongsheng Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Kaijiong Zhang *Department of Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Bo Ye *Department of Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Lichun WuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Sujiao NiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yang LiDepartment of Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Qifeng WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. littlecancer@163.com.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. tjh_zhangpeng@hust.edu.cn.
Dongsheng WangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. wangdongshengnc@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current prognostic tools for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) lack the necessary accuracy to facilitate individualized patient management strategies. To address this issue, this study was conducted to develop a machine learning (ML) prediction model for ESCC patients' survival management. Six ML approaches, including Rpart, Elastic Net, GBM, Random Forest, GLMboost, and the machine learning-extended CoxPH method, were employed to develop risk prediction models. The model was trained on a dataset of 1954 ESCC patients with 27 clinical features and validated on a dataset of 487 ESCC patients. The discriminative performance of the models was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). The best performing model was used for risk stratification and clinical evaluation. The study found that N stage, T stage, surgical margin, tumor grade, tumor length, sex, MPV, AST, FIB, and Mg are the important feature for ESCC patients' survival. The machine learning-extended CoxPH model, Elastic Net, and Random Forest had similar performance in predicting the mortality risk of ESCC patients, and outperformed GBM, GLMboost, and Rpart. The risk scores derived from the CoxPH model effectively stratified ESCC patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with distinctly different 3-year overall survival (OS) probabilities of 80.8%, 58.2%, and 29.5%, respectively. This risk stratification was also observed in the validation cohort. Furthermore, the risk model demonstrated greater discriminative ability and net benefit than the AJCC8th stage, suggesting its potential as a prognostic tool for predicting survival events and guiding clinical decision-making. The classical algorithm of the CoxPH method was also found to be sufficiently good for interpretive studies.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID37598277
PMCPMC10439907

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.