Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835779›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024

Machine learning in the prediction of immunotherapy response and prognosis of melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juan Li, Kena Dan, Jun Ai

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models for Cancer Immunotherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Juan Li *Department of Dermatology, Chongqing Dangdai Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Kena Dan *Department of Dermatology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jun AiDepartment of Dermatology, Chongqing Huamei Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The emergence of immunotherapy has changed the treatment modality for melanoma and prolonged the survival of many patients. However, a handful of patients remain unresponsive to immunotherapy and effective tools for early identification of this patient population are still lacking. Researchers have developed machine learning algorithms for predicting immunotherapy response in melanoma, but their predictive accuracy has been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively evaluate the predictive accuracy of machine learning in melanoma response to immunotherapy. Methods: Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, and Embase from their inception to July 30, 2022. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed on R4.2.0. Results: A total of 36 studies consisting of 30 cohort studies and 6 case-control studies were included. These studies were mainly published between 2019 and 2022 and encompassed 75 models. The outcome measures of this study were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment response. The pooled c-index was 0.728 (95%CI: 0.629-0.828) for PFS in the training set, 0.760 (95%CI: 0.728-0.792) and 0.819 (95%CI: 0.757-0.880) for treatment response in the training and validation sets, respectively, and 0.746 (95%CI: 0.721-0.771) and 0.700 (95%CI: 0.677-0.724) for OS in the training and validation sets, respectively. Conclusion: Machine learning has considerable predictive accuracy in melanoma immunotherapy response and prognosis, especially in the former. However, due to the lack of external validation and the scarcity of certain types of models, further studies are warranted.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyMachine LearningMelanomaHumansPrognosisTreatment Outcomeimmune checkpoint inhibitormachine learningmelanomameta-analysisprediction

Identifiers

PMID38835779
PMCPMC11148209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.