ArticleDiscover oncology2023
Deep-learning-based survival prediction of patients with lower limb melanoma.
Article in Discover oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- GCE: A Framework for Interpretable Nonlinear Hazard Modeling in Cardiac Sarcoma Survival Using SEER Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development of PDAC diagnosis and prognosis evaluation models based on machine learning.BMC cancer · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor the purpose to examine lower limb melanoma (LLM) and its long-term survival rate, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. To estimate the prognosis of LLM patients and assess its efficacy, we used a powerful deep learning and neural network approach called DeepSurv.
methodsWe gathered data on those who had an LLM diagnosis between 2000 and 2019 from the SEER database. We divided the people into training and testing cohorts at a 7:3 ratio using a random selection technique. To assess the likelihood that LLM patients would survive, we compared the results of the DeepSurv model with those of the Cox proportional-hazards (CoxPH) model. Calibration curves, the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the concordance index (C-index) were all used to assess how accurate the predictions were.
resultsIn this study, a total of 26,243 LLM patients were enrolled, with 7873 serving as the testing cohort and 18,370 as the training cohort. Significant correlations with age, gender, AJCC stage, chemotherapy status, surgery status, regional lymph node removal and the survival outcomes of LLM patients were found by the CoxPH model. The CoxPH model's C-index was 0.766, which signifies a good degree of predicted accuracy. Additionally, we created the DeepSurv model using the training cohort data, which had a higher C-index of 0.852. In addition to calculating the 3-, 5-, and 8-year AUC values, the predictive performance of both models was evaluated. The equivalent AUC values for the CoxPH model were 0.795, 0.767, and 0.847, respectively. The DeepSurv model, in comparison, had better AUC values of 0.872, 0.858, and 0.847. In comparison to the CoxPH model, the DeepSurv model demonstrated greater prediction performance for LLM patients, as shown by the AUC values and the calibration curve.
conclusionWe created the DeepSurv model using LLM patient data from the SEER database, which performed better than the CoxPH model in predicting the survival time of LLM 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.