ArticleHeliyon2023
A hybrid CNN-RNN approach for survival analysis in a Lung Cancer Screening study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based early prediction of carotid plaque response to lipid-lowering therapy using longitudinal multimodal ultrasound imaging.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Application of deep learning in prognostic prediction of non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- ViT-DCNN: Vision Transformer with Deformable CNN Model for Lung and Colon Cancer Detection.Cancers · 2025Article
- Deep learning enhances precision diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: future prospects.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Future Applications of Cardiothoracic CT.Radiology · 2025Review
- A systematic review of machine learning in heart disease prediction.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2025Review
- Article
- CenTime: Event-conditional modelling of censoring in survival analysis.Medical image analysis · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we present a hybrid CNN-RNN approach to investigate long-term survival of subjects in a lung cancer screening study. Subjects who died of cardiovascular and respiratory causes were identified whereby the CNN model was used to capture imaging features in the CT scans and the RNN model was used to investigate time series and thus global information. To account for heterogeneity in patients' follow-up times, two different variants of LSTM models were evaluated, each incorporating different strategies to address irregularities in follow-up time. The models were trained on subjects who underwent cardiovascular and respiratory deaths and a control cohort matched to participant age, gender, and smoking history. The combined model can achieve an AUC of 0.76 which outperforms humans at cardiovascular mortality prediction. The corresponding F1 and Matthews Correlation Coefficient are 0.63 and 0.42 respectively. The generalisability of the model is further validated on an 'external' cohort. The same models were applied to survival analysis with the Cox Proportional Hazard model. It was demonstrated that incorporating the follow-up history can lead to improvement in survival prediction. The Cox neural network can achieve an IPCW C-index of 0.75 on the internal dataset and 0.69 on an external dataset. Delineating subjects at increased risk of cardiorespiratory mortality can alert clinicians to request further more detailed functional or imaging studies to improve the assessment of cardiorespiratory disease burden. Such strategies may uncover unsuspected and under-recognised pathologies thereby potentially reducing patient morbidity.
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.