ArticleBJC reports2024
Systematic review of risk prediction tools for primary cutaneous melanoma outcomes and validation of sentinel lymph node positivity prediction in a UK tertiary cohort.
Article in BJC reports, 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.
- Precision oncology in the age of AI: lessons from AI-driven drug discovery and clinical translation.BJC reports · 2026Review
- Spatial determinants of tumor cell dedifferentiation and plasticity in primary cutaneous melanoma.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is difficult for clinicians to make predictions for cancer progression or outcomes based on AJCC staging for individual patients. Models individualising risk prediction for clinical outcomes are developed using patient level data, advanced statistical techniques, and artificial intelligence.
methodsA systematic search identified cutaneous melanoma prognostic prediction tools published between January 1985-March 2023. Population comparisons of key clinico-pathological variables, external prediction of receiver operating characteristics and calibration analysis are applied to an unselected group of patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy in a UK University hospital setting (n = 1564).
resultsTwenty-nine models were identified which predicted survival, disease recurrence or sentinel lymph node positivity (Internal validation n = 19 and external validation n = 14). 3 out of 7 tools for sentinel node positivity were contemporaneous with available characteristics for external validation. External validation of models by Lo et al. Friedman et al. & Bertolli et al. highlighted good discriminative performance (AUC 68.1% (64.5-71.8%), 77.1% (66.8-85.7%) & 68.6% (63.3-74.1%) respectively) but were sub-optimally calibrated for the UK patient cohort (Calibration intercept & slope Friedman: -4.01 & 32.92, Lo: -1.17 & 0.44, Bertolli: -2.75 & 4.88).
conclusionsThis work highlights the complexity of predictive modelling and the rigorous validation process necessary to ensure accurate predictions. Our search highlights a tendency to focus on discriminative performance over calibration, and the possibility for inconsistent predictions when tools are applied to populations with differing characteristics.
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.