ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Rethinking the prognosis model of differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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.
- The prognostic value of central excised lymph node count in N1a papillary thyroid cancer: a population-based study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Individualized survival prediction and risk stratification using machine learning for patients with malignant struma ovarii: a population-based study with external validation.Gland surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prediction efficiency of long-term cancer-specific survival (CSS) in guiding the treatment of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) patients is still unsatisfactory. We need to refine the system so that it more accurately correlates with survival. Methods: This is a retrospective study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, and included patients who underwent surgical treatment and were diagnosed with DTC from 2004 to 2020. Patients were divided into a training cohort (2004-2015) and validation cohort (2016-2020). Decision tree methodology was used to build the model in the training cohort. The newly identified groups were verified in the validation cohort. Results: DTC patient totals of 52,917 and 48,896 were included in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Decision tree classification of DTC patients consisted of five categorical variables, which in order of importance were as follows: M categories, age, extrathyroidal extension, tumor size, and N categories. Then, we identified five TNM groups with similar within-group CSS. More patients were classified as stage I, and the number of stage IV patients decreased significantly. The new system had a higher proportion of variance explained (PVE) (5.04%) and lower Akaike information criterion (AIC) (18,331.906) than the 8th TNM staging system (a PVE of 4.11% and AIC of 18,692.282). In the validation cohort, the new system also showed better discrimination for survival. Conclusion: The new system for DTC appeared to be more accurate in distinguishing stages according to the risk of mortality and provided more accurate risk stratifications and potential treatment selections.
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.