ArticlePloS one2024
Analysis of survival-related factors in patients with endometrial cancer using a Bayesian network model.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Bayesian networks as prognostic models in oncology: a systematic review and recommendations for clinical practice.BMJ oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic risk modeling of endometrial cancer using programmed cell death-related genes: a comprehensive machine learning approach.Discover oncology · 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
backgroundIn recent years, remarkable progress has been made in the use of machine learning, especially in analyzing prognosis survival data. Traditional prediction models cannot identify interrelationships between factors, and the predictive accuracy is lower. This study aimed to construct Bayesian network models using the tree augmented naïve algorithm in comparison with the Cox proportional hazards model.
methodsA Bayesian network model and a Cox proportional hazards model were constructed to analyze the prognostic factors of endometrial cancer. In total, 618 original cases obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were used to construct the Bayesian network model, which was compared with the traditional Cox proportional hazards model by analyzing prognostic factors. External validation was performed using a dataset from The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University.
resultsThe predictive accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and concordance index for the Bayesian network model were 74.68%, 0.787, and 0.72, respectively, compared to 68.83%, 0.723, and 0.71, respectively, for the Cox proportional hazards model. Tumor size was the most important factor for predicting survival, followed by lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, chemotherapy, lymph node resection, tumor stage, depth of invasion, tumor grade, histological type, age, primary tumor site, radiotherapy and surgical sequence, and radiotherapy.
conclusionThe findings indicate that the Bayesian network model is preferable to the Cox proportional hazards model for predicting survival in patients with endometrial cancer.
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.