ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Application of Machine Learning for Predicting Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient outcomes in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain poor, with five-year survival rates ranging from ~10% to 30%. Early projections of therapeutic outcomes could optimize precision medicine and accelerate drug development. While machine learning (ML) models integrating tumor growth inhibition (TGI) metrics have improved survival predictions over traditional models, their application in RCC remains unexplored. Herein, we used TGI metrics and baseline data to evaluate parametric (PM) and semi-parametric (SPM) survival models alongside ML approaches for predicting progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 1839 RCC patients from four trials (evaluating sunitinib, axitinib, sorafenib, interferon-alpha, and avelumab + axitinib). Data were split into training (70%) and testing (30%), and feature selection was used to determine parsimonious and robust models. Bootstrap resampling (n = 100) was employed for models' validation, and performance was assessed using C-index and Integrated Brier Score. In brief, training data results demonstrated that tree-based ML models (random survival forest (RSF) and XGBoost) outperformed PM and SPM models in predicting PFS (C-index: 0.783-0.785 vs. 0.725-0.738 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05) and OS (C-index: 0.77-0.867 vs. 0.750-0.758 for PM and SPM; p < 0.05), with RSF achieving better prediction of PFS and OS using only 3-5 covariates, compared to 9-35 with other tested methods. Tree-based methods were also superior in the testing data. SHapley Additive exPlanations revealed nonlinear relationships among top predictors, including TGI metrics, underscoring the ability of tree-based methods to capture complex prognostic interactions. Further validation is required to confirm models' generalizability to additional therapies and patients with differing tumor severity.
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.