ArticleCancers2024
Is the Validity of Logistic Regression Models Developed with a National Hospital Database Inferior to Models Developed from Clinical Databases to Analyze Surgical Lung Cancers?
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring performance trajectories in lung cancer surgery: a longitudinal study using the French national hospital database from 2020 to 2024.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Is the Parsimonious Eurolung risk model a good predictor for all populations? An external validation study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Reducing Bias in the Evaluation of Robotic Surgery for Lung Cancer Through Machine Learning.Cancers · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Quality of Results of Lung Cancer Surgery in France Using the PMSI National Database.Cancers · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Learning Curve Threshold in Robot-Assisted Lung Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Cancers · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In national hospital databases, certain prognostic factors cannot be taken into account. The main objective was to estimate the performance of two models based on two databases: the Epithor clinical database and the French hospital database. For each of the two databases, we randomly sampled a training dataset with 70% of the data and a validation dataset with 30%. The performance of the models was assessed with the Brier score, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC ROC) curve and the calibration of the model. For Epithor and the hospital database, the training dataset included 10,516 patients (with resp. 227 (2.16%) and 283 (2.7%) deaths) and the validation dataset included 4507 patients (with resp. 93 (2%) and 119 (2.64%) deaths). A total of 15 predictors were selected in the models (including FEV1, body mass index, ASA score and TNM stage for Epithor). The Brier score values were similar in the models of the two databases. For validation data, the AUC ROC curve was 0.73 [0.68-0.78] for Epithor and 0.8 [0.76-0.84] for the hospital database. The slope of the calibration plot was less than 1 for the two databases. This work showed that the performance of a model developed from a national hospital database is nearly as good as a performance obtained with Epithor, but it lacks crucial clinical variables such as FEV1, ASA score, or TNM stage.
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.