ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Interpretable machine learning models to predict survival in esophageal cancer: a study based on the SEER database and external validation in China.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- GCE: A Framework for Interpretable Nonlinear Hazard Modeling in Cardiac Sarcoma Survival Using SEER Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine learning applications in the detection and treatment of esophageal cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We developed interpretable machine learning (ML) models to predict the overall survival (OS) of esophageal cancer patients. This approach aims to make our modeling results more interpretable and transparent. Methods: We collected the clinicopathological information of esophageal cancer patients from the SEER database and divided them into training and validation sets at a ratio of 7:3. Meanwhile, we obtained an external validation cohort from the First People's Hospital of Kashi in Xinjiang, China. Using LASSO and multivariate Cox regression analyses, we identified relevant risk factors and combined them to develop CoxPH and 6 ML models: Random Survival Forest (RSF), Gradient Boosting with Component Linear (GLMboost), decision tree (dt), boosting tree (bt), DeepSurv, and neural multi-task logistic regression (NMTLR). We evaluated the predictive performance of these ML models using the C-index, integral cumulative/dynamic AUC, integral Brier score, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test and Cramer-von Mises (CvM) test. For interpretability assessment, we employed three complementary methods: (1) time-dependent variable importance to quantify feature contribution across follow-up periods; (2) partial correlation survival plots to visualize individual variable effects; and (3) aggregated survival SHapley additive interpretation (SurvSHAP) plots with mean absolute deviation metrics to validate feature impact stability at both individual and population levels. Results: The final ML model consisted of 11 factors: grade, stage, T stage, N stage, M stage, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, bone metastasis, liver metastasis, lung metastasis, and age. Our predictive models demonstrate significant discriminative power; in particular, the NMTLR model performs best. For the training, validation, and external validation sets, the area under the curve (AUC) for one-, three-, and 5-year OS was higher than 0.81, and the integrated Brier score was consistently lower than 0.175. interpretability analyses confirmed consistent predictive logic: M stage, N stage, age, grade, bone metastases, liver metastases, lung metastases and radiotherapy were identified as the most influential predictors via quantifiable SurvSHAP values and time-dependent importance weights, with their effects visually validated through partial correlation survival curves. Conclusion: The NMTLR prognostic model is the most effective at predicting the OS of esophageal cancer patients. It helps physicians correctly assess patient survival and provides valuable information for diagnosis and prognosis evaluation.
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.