Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980491›Full record

ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2025

A retrospective analysis of key predictors and patient outcomes: Using artificial intelligence for precision survival prediction in colorectal cancer.

Muayyad M Ahmad, Eslam Bani Mohammad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Muayyad M AhmadClinical Nursing Department, School of Nursing, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Eslam Bani MohammadDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The study aims to identify critical predictors of mortality and evaluate the performance of different artificial intelligence (AI) models among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Furthermore, the study also sought to enhance our comprehension of survival outcomes by identifying key predictors and evaluating the accuracy of AI-driven prediction methods for patients with CRC. Methods: The study employed a retrospective-predictive design, using data from the electronic health records of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) admitted between 2016 and 2023. Among the eight AI models created by the SPSS Modeler version 18.0, the Bayesian network model was the most effective of the eight models in this study. Results: The researchers identified the most relevant variables associated with mortality among patients with CRC through data visualization. The study analysed 1,159 colorectal cancer patients, with 45.7% living up to six years and 54.3% living between seven and 16 years post-diagnosis. The Bayesian network AI model identified stage, age, recurrence, sex, marital status, and smoking status as key predictors. Conclusion: This study model's structure emphasizes these predictors' interconnectedness because parent nodes directly connect to child nodes. The model shows how age, smoking status, marital status, cancer stage, and recurrence affect patient survival. The model clarifies these variables' interactions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceColorectal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligenceBayesian networkcolorectal cancermortalitysurvival prediction

Identifiers

PMID40980491
PMCPMC12447765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.