ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative analysis of parametric survival models and machine learning methods in breast cancer prognosis.
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 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.
- Integrated Clinical-Molecular Risk Stratification in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Machine Learning Survival Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Comparing the performance of statistical and machine learning survival models in predicting timing and determinants of postnatal care in Rwanda.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Derived Risk Groups and Clinical Implementation of Survival Prediction in Lung Cancer: Evidence from a Kazakh National Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Perioperative machine learning models with SHAP interpretation for predicting adverse outcomes in breast cancer surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of breast cancer survival is critical for optimizing treatment strategies and improving clinical outcomes. This study evaluated a combination of parametric statistical models and machine learning algorithms to identify the most influential prognostic factors affecting the survival of patients. Two commonly used parametric models, log-gaussian regression and logistic regression, were applied to assess the relationship between survival and a set of clinical variables, including age at diagnosis, tumor grade, primary tumor site, marital status, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, race, and receipt of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. Machine learning methods, such as neural networks, support vector machines (SVMs), random forests, gradient boosting machines (GBMs), and logistic regression classifiers, were employed to compare the predictive performance. Among these, the neural network model exhibited the highest predictive accuracy. The random forest model achieved the best balance between model fit and complexity, as indicated by its lowest akaike information criterion and bayesian information criterion values. Across all models, five variables consistently emerged as significant predictors of survival: age, tumor grade, ajcc stage, marital status, and radiation therapy use. These findings highlight the importance of combining traditional survival analysis techniques with machine learning approaches to enhance predictive accuracy and support evidence-based personalized treatment planning in breast cancer care.
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.