ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Machine learning-based prediction of disease-free survival in breast cancer patients with non-pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to construct a robust machine learning (ML) model for predicting the disease-free survival (DFS) and risk stratification of breast cancer (BC) patients with non-pathological complete response (non-PCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The model will facilitate the initiation of early interventions for high-risk patients. This retrospective multicenter cohort study included BC patients from two hospitals in China who received NAC but did not achieve PCR. Four ML algorithms were utilized to construct models based on patients' clinicopathological data, followed by a performance evaluation of these models. To improve the interpretability of the model, the shapley additive explanation (SHAP) method was employed to analyze the contribution of each feature to the predictive outcomes. A total of 463 non-PCR patients were included in the study. Of these, 385 patients were from Ruijin Hospital, affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and were randomly split into a training cohort and an internal validation cohort in a 3:1 ratio for model development and preliminary performance evaluation. In addition, 78 patients enrolled from Jiaxing Women and Children's Hospital were assigned to the external validation cohort to evaluate the model's generalizability. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that age, residual tumor size, Ki67 change, molecular subtype, and axillary lymph node metastasis were independent factors influencing DFS. Among the four ML models, the random survival forest (RSF) model showed the best performance, with a concordance index of 0.820 in the training cohort, 0.642 in the internal validation cohort, and 0.689 in the external validation cohort. Further analysis revealed that the RSF model had excellent discriminative ability with a high area under curve value, while its low Brier score indicated excellent calibration. Decision curve analysis indicated that the RSF model offered a higher clinical net benefit at various time points and effectively stratified risk, successfully identifying high-risk patients. SHAP analysis underscored residual tumor size as the most influential predictive feature. The RSF model can effectively predict DFS and risk of BC patients with non-PCR following NAC, offering a critical reference for developing individualized treatment strategies.
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.