ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning prediction of overall survival in patients with cT1b renal cell carcinoma after surgical resection using the SEER database.
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.
- Development and temporal validation of nomograms and machine learning models for predicting overall and cancer-specific survival in primary distal cholangiocarcinoma: a SEER-based study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Persistent racial and socioeconomic inequities in mycosis fungoides survival: a population-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning enables early identification of financial risk and resource optimization in colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting bone metastasis in breast cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate survival prediction is essential for guiding follow-up strategies in patients with cT1b renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Traditional AJCC TNM staging systems provide limited prognostic accuracy. Data from the SEER database were used, which included 22,426 patients with cT1b RCC who underwent surgical resection. The data were randomized into training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratioen, suring comparability using standardized mean differences (SMD < 0.1). A random survival forest (RSF) model was developed and compared with support vector machine (SVM) and extreme gradient boosting accelerated failure time (XGB-AFT) models. Model performance was assessed using AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and calibration, with 1000 bootstrap resamples. Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values were calculated to explore variable importance and enhance interpretability. The RSF model achieved the highest discrimination for predicting 5- and 10-year overall survival (AUC: 0.746 and 0.742), outperforming AJCC TNM (AUC: 0.663 and 0.627), SVM, and XGB-AFT. The model demonstrated good calibration and clinical net benefit. SHAP analysis identified age, tumor size, grade, and marital status as the top contributors to survival prediction. The RSF model significantly improves survival prediction over conventional staging systems and other machine learning methods, with enhanced interpretability through SHAP analysis. While the lack of external validation and the use of overall survival (including non-cancer deaths) are limitations, the model shows strong potential for clinical implementation and may facilitate individualized follow-up planning. Future studies should validate the model prospectively and explore integration into clinical decision support systems.
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.