ArticleGynecologic oncology2024
Comparing survival of older ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary cytoreductive surgery: Reducing bias through machine learning.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Models in Predicting Ovarian Cancer Survival: A Systematic Review.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Pooled it
- Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy using comprehensive summary measures of medical history: nationwide, population-based study in Sweden.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with declining cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a population-based study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence for precision management of epithelial ovarian cancer: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and evaluate a multidimensional comorbidity index (MCI) that identifies ovarian cancer patients at risk of early mortality more accurately than the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) for use in health services research.
methodsWe utilized SEER-Medicare data to identify patients with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer, diagnosed in 2010-2015. We employed partial least squares regression, a supervised machine learning algorithm, to develop the MCI by extracting latent factors that optimally captured the variation in health insurance claims made in the year preceding cancer diagnosis, and 1-year mortality. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the MCI for 1-year mortality and compared its performance to the commonly-used CCI. Finally, we evaluated the MCI's ability to reduce confounding in the association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and all-cause mortality.
resultsWe included 4723 patients in the development cohort and 933 in the validation cohort. The MCI demonstrated good discrimination for 1-year mortality (c-index: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.72-0.79), while the CCI had poor discrimination (c-index: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63). Calibration plots showed better agreement between predicted and observed 1-year mortality risk for the MCI compared with CCI. When comparing all-cause mortality between NACT with primary cytoreductive surgery, NACT was associated with a higher hazard of death (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.23) after controlling for tumor characteristics, demographic factors, and the CCI. However, when controlling for the MCI instead of the CCI, there was no longer a significant difference (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.14).
conclusionsThe MCI outperformed the conventional CCI in predicting 1-year mortality, and reducing confounding due to differences in baseline health status in comparative effectiveness analysis of NACT versus primary surgery.
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.