ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Prognostic value of a combined model integrating clinical and PET radiomics parameters in metastatic melanoma: A dual-center retrospective study.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and evaluate the predictive efficacy of a combined model incorporating clinical parameters and PET-based radiomics signature (R-signature) for prognosis in patients with metastatic melanoma.
methodsA total of 187 metastatic melanoma patients from two centers were included, with the datasets from each center divided into training and validation cohorts, respectively. The optimal machine learning algorithm selected from the six candidates was used to construct the model. Five-fold cross-validation was performed on the training cohort for internal validation, while the external validation cohort was used for independent validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare the model accuracies. Furthermore, multiparametric models were designed based on results from the Cox proportional hazards model and assessed through calibration curves, concordance index (C-index), and decision curve analysis (DCA) in the training and validation cohorts.
resultsThe cutoff values for R-signature predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 0.47 and 0.59, respectively. The combined model showed robust prognostic performance, with C-indices of 0.92 (95%CI: 0.83-0.98) for PFS and 0.99 (95%CI: 0.97-0.99) for OS in the train cohort. Validation cohort confirmed these findings, with C-indices of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.86-0.99) for PFS and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.92-1.00) for OS. Calibration and decision curve analyses supported the clinical value of the combined model.
conclusionPET-based R-signature offers valuable prognostic insight in metastatic melanoma, with the combined model further improving risk stratification. Moreover, the multiparametric models developed in this study exhibited promising potential in accurately stratifying patients based on their survival risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41273608What 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.