ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023
Comparing supervised and semi-supervised machine learning approaches in NTCP modeling to predict complications in head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models for radiation-induced complications after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for dysphagia after radiotherapy among patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Revolution of Medical Review: The Application of Meta-Analysis and Convolutional Neural Network-Natural Language Processing in Classifying the Literature for Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with radiotherapy often suffer from radiation-induced toxicities. Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) modeling can be used to determine the probability to develop these toxicities based on patient, tumor, treatment and dose characteristics. Since the currently used NTCP models are developed using supervised methods that discard unlabeled patient data, we assessed whether the addition of unlabeled patient data by using semi-supervised modeling would gain predictive performance. Materials and methods: The semi-supervised method of self-training was compared to supervised regression methods with and without prior multiple imputation by chained equation (MICE). The models were developed for the most common toxicity outcomes in HNC patients, xerostomia (dry mouth) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), measured at six months after treatment, in a development cohort of 750 HNC patients. The models were externally validated in a validation cohort of 395 HNC patients. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. Results: MICE and self-training did not improve performance in terms of discrimination or calibration at external validation compared to current regression models. In addition, the relative performance of the different models did not change upon a decrease in the amount of (labeled) data available for model development. Models using ridge regression outperformed the logistic models for the dysphagia outcome. Conclusion: Since there was no apparent gain in the addition of unlabeled patient data by using the semi-supervised method of self-training or MICE, the supervised regression models would still be preferred in current NTCP modeling for HNC patients.
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.