Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404544›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024

Machine learning algorithms being an auxiliary tool to predict the overall survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma using the SEER database.

Weixing Jiang, Zhenghao Chen, Cancan Chen, Lei Wang, Tiandong Han, Li Wen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Weixing Jiang *Department of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhenghao Chen *Department of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Cancan ChenDigital Health China Technologies Co., LTD., Beijing, China.
Lei WangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Tiandong HanDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Li WenDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The clinical prognosis assessment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) still relies on nuclear grading and nuclear score by naked eye with microscope, which has defects long time, low efficiency, and uneven evaluation level criteria. There are few machine learning (ML) studies investigating the prognosis in the RCC literature which could also quantify the risk of postoperative recurrence of RCC patients and guide cancer patients to conduct individualized postoperative clinical management. This study evaluated the suitability of ML algorithms for survival prediction in patients with RCC. Methods: A total of 192,912 RCC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) were obtained from 2004 to 2015. Six ML algorithms including support vector machine (SVM), Bayesian method, decision tree, random forest, neural network, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) were applied to predict overall survival (OS) of RCC. Results: Patients from the SEER with a median age of 62 years and the pathological types were clear cell RCC (47.6%), papillary RCC (9.5%), chromophobe RCC (4.0%) and others (4.1%) were collected. In the deleting patients with missing data, the highest accurate model was XGBoost [area under the curve (AUC) 67.0%]. In the deleting patients with missing data and survival time <5 years, the accuracy of random forest, neural network and XGBoost were high, with AUC of 80.8%, 81.5% and 81.8%, respectively. In the only deleting the missing tumor diameter and filling the missing dataset with missForest, the highest accurate model was random forest (AUC: 71.9%). In this study, the overall accuracy of the SVM model was not high, apart from in the population of patients with deleting the missing tumor diameter and survival time <5 years, and filling the missing data with missForest. Random forest, neural network and XGBoost had high accuracy, with AUC of 84.1%, 84.7% and 84.8%, respectively. Conclusions: ML algorithms could be used to predict the prognosis of RCC. It could quantify the recurrence possibility of patients and help more individualized postoperative clinical management. Given the limitations and complexity of datasets, ML may be used as an auxiliary tool to analyze and process larger datasets and complex data.

Indexed as

algorithmmachine learning (ML)predictionprognosisRenal cell carcinoma (RCC)

Identifiers

PMID38404544
PMCPMC10891382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.