ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative study of five-year cervical cancer cause-specific survival prediction models based on SEER data.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction of long-term prognosis in cervical adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Predictive modeling for cervical cancer: existing AI approaches and the emerging role of vaginal microbiome.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- An interpretable deep learning framework based on TabNet-Cox for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 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
Cervical cancer (CC) is a major cause of mortality in women, with stagnant survival rates, highlighting the need for improved prognostic models. This study aims to develop and compare machine learning models for predicting five-year cause-specific survival (CSS) in CC patients and evaluate their performance against traditional methods like the Cox Proportional Hazards model. Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, we applied the Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique to address class imbalance and used stepwise forward selection, feature importance, and permutation importance for feature selection. The Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis (GBSA) model outperformed others with an Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighted Concordance Index of 0.835 and an Integrated Brier Score of 0.120. SHAP value analysis identified tumor stage and surgical resection as key factors. These findings address a critical gap in CSS prediction for CC patients and offer insights for clinical decision-making and personalized treatment. The GBSA model provides more accurate survival predictions, aiding clinicians in tailoring treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. However, the retrospective study design, potential SEER data entry errors, and the lack of genetic markers and detailed treatment protocols should be considered when interpreting the results.
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.