ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Validation of Four Prognostic Models for Metastatic Posterior Uveal Melanoma in a Danish Cohort.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global trends and inequalities in eye cancer burden: a comprehensive analysis based on the global burden of disease study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the four prognostic models in patients with metastatic posterior uveal melanoma: (I) the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, (II) the Helsinki University Hospital Working Formulation (HUHWF), and two nomograms (III) the Valpione-nomogram, and (IV) the Mariani-nomogram. Methods: One hundred fifty-two patients with metastatic posterior uveal melanoma were retrospectively included. Dictated by data availability, five subcohorts were established: AJCC (n = 152), HUHWF (n = 93), Valpione-nomogram (n = 92), Mariani-nomogram (n = 68), and a complete dataset subcohort (n = 64). The predictive performance was evaluated with time-dependent Brier-score, calibration plots, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the global Harrell's C-index. Results: The 6-month area under the ROC curve (AUC) was between 0.83 and 0.87 for, respectively, the Mariani-nomogram, the HUHWF, and the Valpione-nomogram, and was 0.77 for the AJCC staging system. The 24-month AUC was 0.81 for the Mariani-nomogram, compared with 0.79 (Valpione-nomogram), 0.74 (HUHWF), and 0.64 (AJCC). The C-index was 0.69 for the Mariani-nomogram, 0.71 for the Valpione-nomogram, and 0.73 for HUHWF (not calculated for AJCC). The accuracy of the prediction models, represented by the Brier score, was after 6 months and 24 months: 0.08 and 0.13 for the Mariani-nomogram, 0.10 and 0.17 for the Valpione-nomogram, 0.10 and 0.14 for the HUHWF, and 0.15 and 0.14 for the AJCC staging system. Conclusions: All four models demonstrated an acceptable predictive performance at 6 and 24 months. The Mariani-nomogram appears to perform well across most metrics, often showing the highest values for AUC and the lowest Brier scores.
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.