ArticleHeliyon2025
A novel perspective on survival prediction for AML patients: Integration of machine learning in SEER database applications.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- CharacterizingCancers · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.British journal of haematology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to explore the epidemiological characteristics of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and establish a more accurate model for predicting the prognosis of AML patients based on machine learning. Methods: We obtained clinical data of a total of 87,090 AML patients between 1975 and 2019 from the SEER database. First, we used Kaplan-Meier analysis to examine the prognosis of patients in different strata. Then, we discussed the independent factors that influenced the overall survival (OS) of AML patients, using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Finally, we used 11 machine learning algorithms to predict the survival rate of AML patients at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. We also used five-fold cross-validation with 20 cycles to obtain the optimal parameters for each model, in order to improve the accuracy of predictions. Results: The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the survival rate of patients diagnosed after 2010 was significantly higher than that of those diagnosed before. In addition, older age, male gender, and non-black race were associated with poor prognosis. Among the FAB subtypes, M3 AML had a better prognosis than other subtypes, and among the WHO subtypes, AML associated with Down syndrome had the best prognosis, followed by AML with eosinophilic abnormalities. The Cox regression analysis demonstrated that gender, age, race, and family income were significantly related to the survival of AML patients. Among the 11 machine learning models, the random forest classifier performed best on multiple evaluation metrics in predicting survival at 1, 2, and 3 years. In addition, both the XGBoost classifier and the neural network classifier showed high accuracy and reliability at each prediction stage. Conclusion: Through in-depth analysis, this study provides a deeper understanding of the epidemiological characteristics of AML and successfully establishes a prediction model based on machine learning, which demonstrates good accuracy and reliability in predicting the prognosis of AML patients.
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.