ArticleTranslational cancer research2025
Machine learning prediction of overall survival in patients with primary gastrointestinal melanoma.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary gastrointestinal melanoma (PGIM) is a rare and highly aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis, and accurate survival prediction models are currently lacking. This study aims to analyze the clinical characteristics of PGIM and develop machine learning models to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with PGIM from January 2000 to December 2021 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were randomly split into training and testing sets at an 8:2 ratio. Six algorithms were employed to construct survival prediction models: Cox proportional hazards, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), and Neural Network. Model performance and clinical utility were comprehensively evaluated using the C-index, area under the curve (AUC), Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). For the best-performing model, we further utilized variable importance ranking, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) plots, individual prediction probability plots, and single-case prediction plots for interpretability, and deployed it as an online tool for clinical use. Results: A total of 1,060 patients were included, with 845 in the training set and 215 in the testing set. Tumors were predominantly located in the rectum and anus, with a median survival of 16 months (mean: 30.3 months). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 61%, 30%, and 20%, respectively. Among the six algorithms, the Random Forest survival model demonstrated superior performance: in the training set, the C-index was 0.732, with AUCs of 0.813, 0.808, and 0.840 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively, and Brier scores of 0.175, 0.164, and 0.130. DCA confirmed high clinical net benefit. In the testing set, the model remained robust. Model analysis identified clinical stage, age, and surgical treatment as the three most critical prognostic factors. Conclusions: The Random Forest survival model excels in predicting OS for patients with PGIM, demonstrating strong generalizability and clinical applicability, making it a valuable tool for clinical decision-making.
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.