ArticleBMC cancer2023
Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram model incorporating routine laboratory biomarkers for preoperative patients with endometrial cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Evolving role of biomarkers beyond prostate‑specific antigen in refining prostate cancer screening: From blood‑based tests to urinary and genetic markers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning for preoperative relapse prediction in molecularly stratified endometrial cancer: A single-center finnish cohort study.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome biomarkers collected from routine laboratory tests have shown important value in cancer prognosis. The study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of routine laboratory biomarkers in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) and to develop credible prognostic nomogram models for clinical application.
methodsA total of 727 patients were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate each biomarker's prognostic value, and independent prognostic factors were used to generate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) nomgrams. The efficacy of the nomograms were evaluated by Harrell's concordance index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration curves, X-tile analysis and Kaplan‒Meier curves.
resultsTen significant biomarkers in multivariate Cox analysis were integrated to develop OS and PFS nomograms. The C-indices of the OS- nomogram in the training and validation sets were 0.885 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.810-0.960) and 0.850 (95% CI, 0.761-0.939), respectively; those of the PFS- nomogram in the training and validation sets were 0.903 (95% CI, 0.866-0.940) and 0.825 (95% CI, 0.711-0.939), respectively. ROC, DCA and calibration curves showed better clinical application value for the nomograms incorporating routine laboratory biomarkers. X-tile analysis and Kaplan‒Meier curves showed that the nomograms were stable and credible in evaluating patients at different risks.
conclusionsNomogram models incorporating routine laboratory biomarkers, including NLR, MLR, fibrinogen, albumin and AB blood type, were demonstrated to be simple, reliable and favourable in predicting the outcomes of patients with EC.
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.