Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40040908›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

A comparative study of methods for dynamic survival analysis.

Wieske K de Swart, Marco Loog, Jesse H Krijthe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

3 authors.

Wieske K de SwartInstitute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marco LoogInstitute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jesse H KrijtheInstitute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Dynamic survival analysis has become an effective approach for predicting time-to-event outcomes based on longitudinal data in neurology, cognitive health, and other health-related domains. With advancements in machine learning, several new methods have been introduced, often using a two-stage approach: first extracting features from longitudinal trajectories and then using these to predict survival probabilities. Methods: This work compares several combinations of longitudinal and survival models, assessing their predictive performance across different training strategies. Using synthetic and real-world cognitive health data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we explore the strengths and limitations of each model. Results: Among the considered survival models, the Random Survival Forest consistently delivered strong results across different datasets, longitudinal models, and training strategies. On the ADNI dataset the best performing method was Random Survival Forest with the last visit benchmark and super landmarking with an average tdAUC of 0.96 and brier score of 0.07. Several other methods, including Cox Proportional Hazards and the Recurrent Neural Network, achieve similar scores. While the tested longitudinal models often struggled to outperform simple benchmarks, neural network models showed some improvement in simulated scenarios with sufficiently informative longitudinal trajectories. Discussion: Our findings underscore the importance of aligning model selection and training strategies with the specific characteristics of the data and the target application, providing valuable insights that can inform future developments in dynamic survival analysis.

Indexed as

ADNIdynamic predictionlandmarkinglongitudinal datamachine learningsurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID40040908
PMCPMC11876041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.