ArticleResearch square2024
Improving survival models in healthcare: a novel matching approach.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present, to our knowledge, the first methodological study aimed at enhancing the prognostic power of Cox regression models, widely used in survival analysis, through optimized data selection. Our approach employs a novel two-stage mechanism: by framing the prognostic stratum matching problem intuitively, we select prognostically representative patient observations to create a more balanced training set. This enables the model to assign equal attention to distinct prognostic subgroups. We demonstrate the methodology using an observational dataset of 1,799 patients with resected colorectal cancer liver metastases, 1,197 of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy and 602 who did not. In our study, as is current standard practice, the comparator was training prognostic models on the entire cohort (referred to as "model 1"). Models trained on the untreated and treated subgroups, matched through our approach (referred to as "model 3"), showed an improvement of up to 20% in bootstrapped C-indices compared to model 1. Notably, model 3 exhibited superior calibration, with a 6- to 10-fold improvement over model 1. Additional performance metrics aligned with these findings, and robustness was confirmed through bias-corrected bootstrapping. Given the ongoing development of numerous linear prognostic models and the general applicability of our approach to any observational data, this method holds significant potential to impact biomedical research and clinical practice where prognostic models are utilized.
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.