ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of interpretable machine learning models to predict distant metastasis and prognosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of RNA processing-related gene-based bladder cancer subtypes for prognosis and immune landscape assessment.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Emerging Molecular and Computational Biomarkers in Urothelial Carcinoma: Innovations in Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Response Prediction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning prediction of overall survival in patients with cT1b renal cell carcinoma after surgical resection using the SEER database.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Management of Cancers: Potentials and Challenges.MedComm · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) is a more aggressive disease than non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), with greater chances of metastasis. We sought to develop machine learning (ML) models to predict metastasis and prognosis in MIBC patients. Clinical data of MIBC cases from 2000 to 2020 were sourced from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Clinical variables used to predict DM were identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression, and Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). Thirteen ML models predicting DM were evaluated based on AUC, PRAUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, cross-entropy, Brier score, balanced accuracy, and F-beta score. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework helped interpret the best model. Additionally, we utilized ML algorithm combinations to predict prognosis in MIBC patients with metastasis. A total of 43,951 T2-T4 MIBC patients aged over 18 years old from the SEER database were enrolled consecutively. Nine clinical variables were selected to predict DM. The CatBoost model was identified as the optimal predictor, with AUC values of 0.956 [0.933, 0.969] for the training set, 0.882 [0.857, 0.919] for the internal test set, and 0.839 [0.723, 0.936] for the external test set. The model achieved an accuracy of 0.875 [0.854, 0.896], sensitivity of 0.869 [0.851, 0.889], specificity of 0.883 [0.823, 0.912], and precision of 0.917 [0.885, 0.944]. SHAP analysis revealed that tumor size was the most influential factor in predicting distant metastasis. For prognosis, the "RSF + Enet[alpha = 0.8]" model emerged as the top performer, with C-index values of 0.683 in training, 0.688 in the internal test, and 0.666 in the external test sets. Our ML models provide high accuracy and dependability, delivering refined, individualized predictions for metastasis risk and prognosis in MIBC 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.