ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Automated feature learning and survival prognostication in grade 4 glioma using supervised machine learning models.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWHO grade 4 glioma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor, with a median survival of only 14.6 months. Predicting survival outcomes remains challenging due to the tumor's heterogeneity and the influence of multiple clinical factors. Machine learning (ML) techniques have demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to traditional statistical models. Embedded feature-selection techniques such as Lasso shrinkage or Random-Forest importance scores are widely used, yet grade-4-glioma prognostic models still rely on an initial clinician-curated variable list and on ad-hoc cut-offs (e.g., "top X features" or "above certain threshold") when deciding how many ranked features to keep-choices that markedly influence model accuracy. We therefore developed a fully data-driven pipeline that begins with an unrestricted pool of clinical, functional, and biomarker variables, employs SHAP values for global importance ranking, and uses automated feature-subset optimization to identify the most optimal combination of predictors that maximizes survival-prediction performance in grade-4 glioma.
methodWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 764 patients who underwent grade 4 glioma resection at a single institution. Five ML models (XGBoost, AdaBoost, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and Neural Networks) were trained to predict survival time and classify into longer-term survival (≥ 12 months) and short-term survival (< 12 months). Feature selection was performed in two steps: (1) Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAPs) were used to identify the most important prognostic features influencing survival outcomes, and (2) feature-subset optimization was applied to determine the optimal number of top features to be included in each model. 5-fold cross-validation (CV) and holdout testing were performed to evaluate the models' performance on unseen testing data. Model evaluation was conducted using root mean square error (RMSE) for regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for classification. Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate the clinical utility of the models.
resultsFeature selection and model optimization significantly enhanced predictive accuracy across both regression and classification tasks. In regression, AdaBoost achieved the lowest RMSE of 1.69 months after feature selection, outperforming other models. In classification, XGBoost demonstrated the highest AUROC (0.85) on holdout testing, though all ensemble models (XGBoost, Random Forest, and AdaBoost) achieved comparable performance with no statistical significance. DCA revealed that XGBoost and Random Forest achieved the most net benefit of 0.24 and 0.22, respectively. Key prognostic features consistently identified included patient age, tumor location, radiation dose, extent of resection, Karnofsky Performance Score, and MGMT promoter methylation status. Biomarkers such as Ki-67, ATRX, and TP53 also emerged as important predictors of survival outcomes. The model also uncovered several cognitive and functional deficits-including preoperative and postoperative language deficits, permanent motor deficits, and perioperative seizures-that were previously underutilized in survival prediction models.
conclusionML-based feature selection enhances survival prediction in grade 4 glioma by systematically identifying the most relevant prognostic factors while minimizing human bias. Our findings suggest that ensemble models, and particularly AdaBoost, offer robust prognostic capabilities. These insights can aid clinicians in personalized treatment planning and patient counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40522559What 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.