ArticleScientific reports2024
Random survival forest algorithm for risk stratification and survival prediction in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Using radiological brain health to predict recurrence after ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack: A population-based study.Neurology open access · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Prognosis of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Cancers · 2025Review
- Predicting gastric cancer survival using machine learning: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Comparing Random Survival Forests and Cox Regression for Nonresponders to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Breast Cancer: Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Identification of potential biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma based on machine learning and bioinformatics analysis.Discover 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to construct and assess a machine-learning algorithm designed to forecast survival rates and risk stratification for patients with gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) after diagnosis. Data on patients with gNENs were extracted and randomly divided into training and validation sets using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We developed a prediction model using 10 machine learning algorithms across 101 combinations to forecast cancer-related mortality in patients with gNENs, selecting the best model using the highest mean over a sequence of time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). The performance of the final model was assessed through time-dependent ROC curves for discrimination and calibration curves for calibration. The maximum selection rank method was used to determine the best prognostic risk score threshold for classifying patients into high- and low-risk groups. Afterward, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to compare survival rates among these groups. Our study examined 775 patients with gNENs, dividing them into training and validation sets. A training set comprised 543 patients, with a median follow-up of 42 months and cumulative mortality rates of 40.0% at 1 year, 48.6% at 3 years, and 54.0% at 5 years. A validation set comprised 232 patients, with cumulative mortality rates of 29.1% at 1 year, 43.5% at 3 years, and 53.2% at 5 years. The optimal random survival forest (RSF) model (mtry = 4, node size = 5) achieved an AUC of 0.839 for survival prediction in the training set. Comprising 11 variables such as demographics, treatment details, tumor characteristics, T staging, N staging, and M staging, the RSF model revealed high predictive accuracy with AUCs of 0.92, 0.96, and 0.96 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival, respectively, which was consistently reflected in the validation set with AUCs of 0.88, 0.92, and 0.89, respectively. Moreover, patients were risk-stratified. Although our RSF model effectively stratified patients into different prognostic groups, it needs external validation to confirm its utility for noninvasive prognostic prediction and risk stratification in gNENs. Further research is required to verify its broader clinical applicability.
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.