ArticleSurgery2025
Beyond TNM staging: Machine learning of individualized colon cancer outcomes.
Article in Surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnatomic TNM staging lacks patient information that can influence cancer survival. Using machine learning, specifically extreme gradient boosting with survival embeddings, a model can be developed to improve predictive accuracy of patient survival by including additional clinical information.
methodsA retrospective study of 382,531 colon cancer cases diagnosed between 2018 and 2021 using the National Cancer Database. A random forest analysis was performed followed by training a machine learning model to develop survival predictions. Model 1 used only TNM staging to predict survival, whereas model 2 used TNM and the additional variables to predict survival. Predictive efficacy was compared using integrated Brier scores (a measure that predicts error rates), Harrell concordant indices (a measure that evaluates the discriminative ability of survival models), and time-dependent areas under the curve (a measure that assesses the performance of survival models).
resultsPredictive accuracy metrics demonstrated improvements in all areas including a 4-year Brier score of 0.19 for the TNM-only model, and 0.14 for the TNM with predictors model; a Harell concordance index for TNM-only of 0.73 and 0.83 for TNM with predictors. Finally, the average time-dependent area under the curve for TNM only was 0.75, and the average time-dependent area under the curve for TNM with predictors was 0.87.
conclusionMachine learning can be used to develop models of cancer survival that include clinical parameters resulting in more accurate predictions of patient outcomes compared with traditional TNM anatomic staging.
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.