ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Comparison of Random Survival Forest Based-Overall Survival With Deep Learning and Cox Proportional Hazard Models in HER-2-Positive HR-Negative Breast Cancer.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Derived Risk Groups and Clinical Implementation of Survival Prediction in Lung Cancer: Evidence from a Kazakh National Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Unified Framework for Survival Prediction: Combining Machine Learning Feature Selection with Traditional Survival Analysis in Heart Failure and METABRIC Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease as a systemic disorder: extrahepatic manifestations and the need for data-driven phenotyping.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Comparison of Random Survival Forest Based-Overall Survival With Deep Learning and Cox Proportional Hazard Models in HER-2-Positive HR-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional CoxPH models are limited in handling real-world data complexities. While machine learning models like RSF and DeepSurv show promise, their application and comparative evaluation in the HER2-positive/HR-negative breast cancer subtype require further validation.
aimsThis study aims to build a survival prediction model for breast cancer patients based on different methods. The optimal model will provide more accurate survival predictions for clinical decision-making of HER2 positive and HR negative cancer patients. METHODS AND
resultsThis study analyzed 8,119 HER2-positive HR-negative breast cancer patients from the SEER database, randomly allocated to training/validation/test cohorts (7:1:2 ratio). Predictive models were developed using five feature sets and three algorithms (Cox PH, RSF, DeepSurv), with feature selection optimized via Concordance index (C-index). Evaluation revealed: The C-index of the DeepSurv models constructed using the training set is greater than 0.8, performing better than both the RSF and CoxPH models. However, CoxPH outperforms DeepSurv in terms of C-index when testset. The Brier scores for all models were below 0.25. Which indicates that the models predicted with high accuracy. Based on the training set, the Deepsurv model predicted the highest ROC-AUCs of 0.91, 0.863, and 0.855 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS), respectively. The RSF model achieved the highest AUCs, specifically 0.876, 0.861, and 0.845, for 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival in the test group. The calibration graphs indicate that of the three models forecasting overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years, the RSF model demonstrated the greatest level of agreement between predictions and actual observations, trailed by the DeepSurv model. There was poor agreement between CoxPH model predictions and observed data. Optimal Clinical Net Benefits at 1, 3, and 5 Years for DCA of the Deepsurv Model in the Training Set Data. However, in the test set, compared to other models, RSF showed better Optimal Clinical Net Benefits.
conclusionsIn conclusion, compared to conventional prognostic models, the Random Survival Forest (RSF) model serves as a reliable tool for predicting long-term survival in breast cancer patients, demonstrating consistent performance across diverse datasets. Furthermore, the feature set selected via RSF-Variable Importance (VIMP) (compared with LASSO regression and Cox regression) significantly enhances the performance of prognostic models. Our findings may offer practical guidance for future development of long-term prognostic models tailored to breast cancer subtypes.
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.