Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528626›Full record

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.

R N Manton, A Roshan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R N MantonCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0056-946X
A RoshanCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. amit.roshan@cruk.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2034-2759

Funding

Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge C64667/A27958
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39528626
PMCPMC11554800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.