ArticleCancers2024
Enhancing Preoperative Outcome Prediction: A Comparative Retrospective Case-Control Study on Machine Learning versus the International Esodata Study Group Risk Model for Predicting 90-Day Mortality in Oncologic Esophagectomy.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a clinically interpretable risk scoring system for predicting one-year all-cause mortality in esophageal cancer: a population-based study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- AI-driven pathology in esophageal cancer: from early screening to precision prognostics.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk prediction prior to oncologic esophagectomy is crucial for assisting surgeons and patients in their joint informed decision making. Recently, a new risk prediction model for 90-day mortality after esophagectomy using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database was proposed, allowing for the preoperative assignment of patients into different risk categories. However, given the non-linear dependencies between patient- and tumor-related risk factors contributing to cumulative surgical risk, machine learning (ML) may evolve as a novel and more integrated approach for mortality prediction. We evaluated the IESG risk model and compared its performance to ML models. Multiple classifiers were trained and validated on 552 patients from two independent centers undergoing oncologic esophagectomies. The discrimination performance of each model was assessed utilizing the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). The 90-day mortality rate was 5.8%. We found that IESG categorization allowed for adequate group-based risk prediction. However, ML models provided better discrimination performance, reaching superior AUROCs (0.64 [0.63-0.65] vs. 0.44 [0.32-0.56]), AUPRCs (0.25 [0.24-0.27] vs. 0.11 [0.05-0.21]), and MCCs (0.27 ([0.25-0.28] vs. 0.15 [0.03-0.27]). Conclusively, ML shows promising potential to identify patients at risk prior to surgery, surpassing conventional statistics. Still, larger datasets are needed to achieve higher discrimination performances for large-scale clinical implementation in the future.
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.