ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
A comparative study of methods for dynamic survival analysis.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multimodal AI for Alzheimer Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review of Datasets, Models, and Modalities.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence models for survival prediction in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of time-to-event approaches.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
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
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
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.