ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a machine learning-based model for prognostic prediction in melanoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer associated with a poor prognosis, making survival time a primary concern for patients. This study applies five machine learning models to predict survival rates for melanoma patients, aiming to improve prognostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making. Melanoma patient data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Five machine learning models-Random Forest, Decision Tree, XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM-were applied to predict 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates for melanoma patients. The CatBoost model was selected for its superior performance and evaluated using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), confusion matrix, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to assess its accuracy and clinical utility. This study analyzed data from 4,875 patients with cutaneous melanoma, incorporating thirteen demographic and clinical variables to develop survival prediction models using five machine learning algorithms. Among these, the CatBoost model demonstrated the best overall performance and stability following five-fold cross-validation. The model achieved AUC values of 0.7577, 0.7595, and 0.7557 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival predictions, respectively. Decision Curve Analysis further confirmed its clinical utility, while consistent precision across both training and test sets indicated robust generalization and reliable predictive capability. These findings highlight the CatBoost model's potential as a practical and accurate tool for assessing melanoma prognosis and supporting individualized clinical decision-making. This model provides clinicians with an effective tool for early intervention, which may ultimately contribute to improved patient survival outcomes.
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.