Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41068878›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Dynamic survival analysis via a landmarking-gradient boosting approach and its application to kidney transplant data.

Niloofar Shabani, Mehdi Yaseri, Rasoul Alimi, Fatemeh Nazemian, Hojjat Zeraati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Niloofar ShabaniDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehdi YaseriDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Rasoul AlimiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran.
Fatemeh NazemianDepartment of Internal Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Hojjat ZeraatiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. zeraatih@tums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn some survival studies, longitudinal biomarkers, along with baseline covariates, play crucial roles in predicting patient survival. Dynamic prediction models that incorporate updated longitudinal marker information offer updated survival predictions for patients. In this study, we employ a combination of the nonparametric gradient boosting machine learning algorithm and the landmark approach, which not only facilitates dynamic prediction but also circumvents the limitations of classical methods.

methodsWe conducted two simulation studies under different scenarios to compare three dynamic prediction models: the joint model, the Cox landmarking model, and the Landmarking Gradient Boosting Model (LGBM). We compared the three dynamic survival prediction methods using AUC (Area Under the Curve) and Brier score metrics. Using the LGBM, we performed dynamic prediction at various landmark times on a real kidney transplant dataset in the presence of two longitudinal markers.

resultsSimulation studies demonstrated that when there was a simple linear relationship between longitudinal markers and the survival process, the joint model outperformed both Cox landmarking and LGBM in terms of higher AUC (better discrimination) and lower Brier score (better overall performance) indices. Conversely, in scenarios characterized by complex and nonlinear relationships between longitudinal markers and the survival process, the LGBM outperformed the two classical methods, under conditions involving larger sample sizes (n = 1000, 1500 vs. n = 300, 650), higher censoring rates (90% vs. 30%, 50%), and later landmark times (3.5, 5, 6.5 vs. 0.5, 2). The application of LGBM to real kidney transplant data revealed that at early landmark time points, factors such as blood urea nitrogen (BUN) (variable importance [VIMP] = 0.34), age (VIMP = 0.26), creatinine (VIMP = 0.24), hypertension (VIMP = 0.10), and gender (VIMP = 0.06) were associated with the risk of kidney transplant failure. At subsequent landmark time points, creatinine, BUN, and age emerged as the most important factors associated with kidney allograft failure.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that in situations where the relationships between variables are complex and the proportional hazards assumption does not hold, the LGBM method performs better than Cox landmarking and joint modeling for dynamic survival prediction in cases with large sample sizes, high censoring rates, and later landmark times. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationMachine LearningBiomarkersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurvival AnalysisBiomarkersDynamic risk predictionGradient boosting treesLongitudinal markersMachine learning in survivalSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID41068878
PMCPMC12513103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.