ArticleTranslational cancer research2023
Use of survival support vector machine combined with random survival forest to predict the survival of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognosing post-treatment outcomes of head and neck cancer using structured data and machine learning: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Explainable machine-learning prediction of overall and cancer-specific survival in adult triple-negative breast cancer using SEER: a comparative study of nomograms and random survival forests.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Development of machine learning models for survival prediction in nasopharyngeal carcinoma using population-based data.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in spindle cell variants of squamous cell carcinoma: a machine learning analysis of 1086 patients from the SEER database.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Comparison of machine learning and nomogram to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction combined with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective study based on the eICU-CRD and MIMIC-IV databases.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Survival Prediction in Brain Metastasis Patients Treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Hybrid Machine Learning Approach.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Creating an interactive database for nasopharyngeal carcinoma management: applying machine learning to evaluate metastasis and survival.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Triglyceride-inflammation score established on account of random survival forest for predicting survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Cox regression model is not sufficiently accurate to predict the survival prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. It is impossible to calculate and rank the importance of impact factors due to the low predictive accuracy of the Cox regression model. So, we developed a system. Using the SEER (The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database data on NPC patients, we proposed the use of random survival forest (RSF) and survival-support vector machine (SVM) from the machine learning methods to develop a survival prediction system specifically for NPC patients. This approach aimed to make up for the insufficiency of the Cox regression model. We also used the Cox regression model to validate the development of the nomogram and compared it with machine learning methods. Methods: A total of 1,683 NPC patients were extracted from the SEER database from January 2010 to December 2015. We used R language for modeling work, established the nomogram of survival prognosis of NPC patients by Cox regression model, ranked the correlation of influencing factors by RSF model VIMP (variable important) method, developed a survival prognosis system for NPC patients based on survival-SVM, and used C-index for model evaluation and performance comparison. Results: Although the Cox regression models can be developed to predict the prognosis of NPC patients, their accuracy was lower than that of machine learning methods. When we substituted the data for the Cox model, the C-index for the training set was only 0.740, and the C-index for the test set was 0.721. In contrast, the C index of the survival-SVM model was 0.785. The C-index of the RSF model was 0.729. The importance ranking of each variable could be obtained according to the VIMP method. Conclusions: The prediction results from the Cox model are not as good as those of the RSF method and survival-SVM based on the machine learning method. For the survival prognosis of NPC patients, the machine learning method can be considered for clinical application.
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.