Trial reportScientific reports2023
Prediction of lung papillary adenocarcinoma-specific survival using ensemble machine learning models.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with sarcopenia in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- The risk prediction models for sarcopenia in older adults: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting 5-Year Mortality in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using the Korean Central Cancer Registry: Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Risk evaluation for second primary malignancy development in individuals with colorectal adenocarcinoma: a population-based investigation.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Integrated post-GWAS, single-cell, and functional analyses prioritizeFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based diagnostic models for prevalent metabolic syndrome among patients with disuse muscle atrophy: a comparative study of seven algorithms.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Risk-adapted use of thoracic radiotherapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter prognostic model study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Association between the ratio of uric acid to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (UHR) and the abnormal risk of sarcopenia: Evidence from two large population-based surveys and interpretable machine learning-driven sarcopenia screening.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Association of physical component score with high-risk lung nodules among Chinese Urban sanitation workers: a sex-specific analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Enhancing sarcopenia screening in primary care: a machine learning approach using simple physical tests vs. SARC-F in 2,788 community-dwelling older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Association between estimated glucose disposal rate and metabolic syndrome in older adults with sarcopenia.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Automated classification of lung cancer subtypes cells using microscopic images and ensembled deep learning architectures.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prognostic models for large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: a machine learning and regression approach.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prognostic prediction is crucial for treatment decision-making in lung papillary adenocarcinoma (LPADC). The aim of this study was to predict cancer-specific survival in LPADC using ensemble machine learning and classical Cox regression models. Moreover, models were evaluated to provide recommendations based on quantitative data for personalized treatment of LPADC. Data of patients diagnosed with LPADC (2004-2018) were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The set of samples was randomly divided into the training and validation sets at a ratio of 7:3. Three ensemble models were selected, namely gradient boosting survival (GBS), random survival forest (RSF), and extra survival trees (EST). In addition, Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) regression was used to construct the prognostic models. The Harrell's concordance index (C-index), integrated Brier score (IBS), and area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (time-dependent AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of the predictive models. A user-friendly web access panel was provided to easily evaluate the model for the prediction of survival and treatment recommendations. A total of 3615 patients were randomly divided into the training and validation cohorts (n = 2530 and 1085, respectively). The extra survival trees, RSF, GBS, and CoxPH models showed good discriminative ability and calibration in both the training and validation cohorts (mean of time-dependent AUC: > 0.84 and > 0.82; C-index: > 0.79 and > 0.77; IBS: < 0.16 and < 0.17, respectively). The RSF and GBS models were more consistent than the CoxPH model in predicting long-term survival. We implemented the developed models as web applications for deployment into clinical practice (accessible through https://shinyshine-820-lpaprediction-model-z3ubbu.streamlit.app/ ). All four prognostic models showed good discriminative ability and calibration. The RSF and GBS models exhibited the highest effectiveness among all models in predicting the long-term cancer-specific survival of patients with LPADC. This approach may facilitate the development of personalized treatment plans and prediction of prognosis for LPADC.
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.