ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Optimizing adjuvant treatment options for patients with glioblastoma.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Individualized Triplet Chemotherapy Decision-Making in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Machine-Learning-Driven Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Determining individual suitability for neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer patients through deep learning.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Individualized survival prediction and surgery recommendation for patients with glioblastoma.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study focused on minimizing the costs and toxic effects associated with unnecessary chemotherapy. We sought to optimize the adjuvant therapy strategy, choosing between radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT), for patients based on their specific characteristics. This selection process utilized an innovative deep learning method. Methods: We trained six machine learning (ML) models to advise on the most suitable treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) patients. To assess the protective efficacy of these ML models, we employed various metrics: hazards ratio (HR), inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted HR (HR Results: The Balanced Individual Treatment Effect for Survival data (BITES) model emerged as the most effective, demonstrating significant protective benefits (HR: 0.53, 95% CI, 0.48-0.60; IPTW-adjusted HR: 0.65, 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; dRMST: 7.92, 95% CI, 7.81-8.15; NNT: 1.67, 95% CI, 1.24-2.41). Patients whose treatment aligned with BITES recommendations exhibited notably better survival rates compared to those who received different treatments, both before and after IPTW adjustment. In the CRT-recommended group, a significant survival advantage was observed when choosing CRT over RT ( Conclusion: Our study suggests that BITES can effectively identify GBM patients likely to benefit from CRT. These ML models show promise in transforming the complex heterogeneity of real-world clinical practice into precise, personalized treatment recommendations.
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.