ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Laboratory blood parameters and machine learning for the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Machine learning applications in the detection and treatment of esophageal cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Recent advances in machine learning for precision diagnosis and treatment of esophageal disorders.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Personalized prediction of esophageal cancer risk based on virtually generated alcohol data.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- A cross-cohort study identifies potential oral microbial markers for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.iScience · 2024Article
- Rapid detection of liver metastasis risk in colorectal cancer patients through blood test indicators.Frontiers in oncology · 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: In contemporary study, the death of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients need precise and expedient prognostic methodologies. Objective: To develop and validate a prognostic model tailored to ESCC patients, leveraging the power of machine learning (ML) techniques and drawing insights from comprehensive datasets of laboratory-derived blood parameters. Methods: Three ML approaches, including Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Random Survival Forest (RSF), and the classical Cox method, were employed to develop models on a dataset of 2521 ESCC patients with 27 features. The models were evaluated by concordance index (C-index) and time receiver operating characteristics (Time ROC) curves. We used the optimal model to evaluate the correlation between features and prognosis and divide patients into low- and high-risk groups by risk stratification. Its performance was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curve and the comparison with AJCC8 stage. We further evaluate the comprehensive effectiveness of the model in ESCC subgroup by risk score and KDE (kernel density estimation) plotting. Results: RSF's C-index (0.746) and AUC (three-year AUC 0.761, five-year AUC 0.771) had slight advantage over GBM and the classical Cox method. Subsequently, 14 features such as N stage, T stage, surgical margin, tumor length, age, Dissected LN number, MCH, Na, FIB, DBIL, CL, treatment, vascular invasion, and tumor grade were selected to build the model. Based on these, we found significant difference for survival rate between low-(3-year OS 81.8%, 5-year OS 69.8%) and high-risk (3-year OS 25.1%, 5-year OS 11.5%) patients in training set, which was also verified in test set (all P < 0.0001). Compared with the AJCC8th stage system, it showed a greater discriminative ability which is also in good agreement with its staging ability. Conclusion: We developed an ESCC prognostic model with good performance by clinical features and laboratory blood parameters.
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.