ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
SurvdigitizeR: an algorithm for automated survival curve digitization.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Safety Profiles of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Strategies in Gastrointestinal Cancers and Their Association With Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with extramedullary disease: a meta-analysis.Annals of hematology · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy as first-line maintenance for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a analysis from a Chinese healthcare perspective.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of ponatinib vs reference and generic imatinib in front-line management of philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A value dilemma.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Reconstructing patient level survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- KM-GPT: An Automated Pipeline for Reconstructing Individual Patient Data from Kaplan-Meier Plots.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision analytic models and meta-analyses often rely on survival probabilities that are digitized from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. However, manually extracting these probabilities from KM curves is time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone. We developed an efficient and accurate algorithm that automates extraction of survival probabilities from KM curves.
methodsThe automated digitization algorithm processes images from a JPG or PNG format, converts them in their hue, saturation, and lightness scale and uses optical character recognition to detect axis location and labels. It also uses a k-medoids clustering algorithm to separate multiple overlapping curves on the same figure. To validate performance, we generated survival plots form random time-to-event data from a sample size of 25, 50, 150, and 250, 1000 individuals split into 1,2, or 3 treatment arms. We assumed an exponential distribution and applied random censoring. We compared automated digitization and manual digitization performed by well-trained researchers. We calculated the root mean squared error (RMSE) at 100-time points for both methods. The algorithm's performance was also evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis for the agreement between automated and manual digitization on a real-world set of published KM curves.
resultsThe automated digitizer accurately identified survival probabilities over time in the simulated KM curves. The average RMSE for automated digitization was 0.012, while manual digitization had an average RMSE of 0.014. Its performance was negatively correlated with the number of curves in a figure and the presence of censoring markers. In real-world scenarios, automated digitization and manual digitization showed very close agreement.
conclusionsThe algorithm streamlines the digitization process and requires minimal user input. It effectively digitized KM curves in simulated and real-world scenarios, demonstrating accuracy comparable to conventional manual digitization. The algorithm has been developed as an open-source R package and as a Shiny application and is available on GitHub: https://github.com/Pechli-Lab/SurvdigitizeR and https://pechlilab.shinyapps.io/SurvdigitizeR/ .
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.