ArticleExperimental dermatology2025
Determining a Stability Prognostic Panel for 636 Patients With Melanoma Using a Machine Learning Computational Framework.
Article in Experimental dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determining a Stability Prognostic Panel for 636 Patients With Melanoma Using a Machine Learning Computational Framework.Experimental dermatology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current prognostic evaluation in melanoma primarily relies on traditional histopathological and clinical staging evaluation; however, these conventional approaches exhibit limited accuracy and fail to account for individual patient heterogeneity. To address these limitations, we developed a machine learning-driven prognostic signature, with the objectives of identifying pivotal biomarkers and establishing a precision medicine framework for prognostic assessment in melanoma management. Bulk RNA-seq data of 636 melanoma patients were obtained from TCGA and GEO databases, followed by univariate Cox regression to identify prognosis-associated genes. Intersecting results across cohorts identified consistently prognostic genes. Heterogeneity of the selected genes was assessed between primary and metastatic melanoma using scRNA-seq data. The consensus prognosis-related signature was developed by systematically integrating 101 machine learning algorithms, with model performance rigorously evaluated through multidimensional metrics. Finally, molecular experiments validated the prognostic relevance of the model's hub genes, and the biological role of CUL2 was investigated in melanoma. 53 protective prognosis-related genes (PRGs) were identified in melanoma. Single-cell analysis revealed elevated PRGs activity in primary melanoma tissues compared to metastatic lesions. A 14-gene consensus prognosis-related signature was developed using LASSO and RSF algorithms. The model achieved a C-index of 0.908 in the TCGA-SKCM cohort and a mean C-index of 0.758 across four independent validation cohorts. Furthermore, the model outperformed 19 existing prognostic models across multiple cohorts. This study developed a 14-gene consensus prognosis-related signature validated for robust prognostic performance across cohorts. CUL2, identified as a pivotal protective biomarker in melanoma, demonstrates potent tumour-suppressive activity through significant inhibition of proliferation and migration potential.
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.