ArticleCureus2025
Machine Learning-Based Mortality Prediction Model Using Minimal Features to Assist Decision-Making in End-of-Life Care.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction International guidelines recommend single or hypo-fraction for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). However, due to the inherent difficulty in accurately predicting life expectancy, the customization of end-of-life care for individual patients poses a significant challenge. This study aims to develop a machine learning-based mortality prediction model for PRT tailored to life expectancy. Methods A retrospective analysis encompassed 318 patients who expired after receiving PRT for advanced cancer from March 2013 to July 2023. Various model algorithms employing 22 variables were used to predict mortality within 30 days from initiation of PRT: extra trees, random forest, light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). We evaluated each model's performance using accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and F1 score. Results A total of 302 patients were analyzed after excluding those with missing data. The <30-day mortality group had significantly worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, lower albumin, higher neutrophil‑to‑lymphocyte ratio, and lower lymphocyte count (all p<0.05). No significant multicollinearity was observed. Among all models, LightGBM showed the best performance (accuracy: 0.725, F1-score: 0.720). A minimal variable model (MVM) using the top eight features plus sex achieved comparable performance to the full variable model (FVM), with improved recall and reduced complexity. Conclusion We developed a machine learning-based mortality prediction model for tailoring PRT to life expectancy. The model identified clinically meaningful predictors that reflect patient condition and tumor burden. The MVM demonstrated a comparable performance to the FVM, suggesting its potential utility as an interpretable and practical clinical decision support tool for individualized end-of-life care planning.
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.