Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41402973›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

A clustering-stratified cross-validation framework for validating omics survival models: application to head and neck cancer.

Antoine Dubray-Vautrin, Olivier Choussy, Constance Lamy, Grégoire Marret, Joey Martin, Jerzy Klijanienko, Sophie Vacher, Ladidi Ahmanache, Ivan Bieche, Célia Dupain and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03017573 (Prospective Biobanking Study in Cancer Patients Aiming at Better Understand the Link Between the Molecular Alterations of the Tumor Itself, Its Microenvironment and Immune Response), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03017573 narecruitingnot on this map

Prospective Biobanking Study in Cancer Patients Aiming at Better Understand the Link Between the Molecular Alterations of the Tumor Itself, Its Microenvironment and Immune Response (SCANDARE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut CurieRan2017 to 2032Enrolled1,050ConditionsOvarian Cancer, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, Head and Neck Cancer, Cervical CancerArmsTumor biopsies / Tumor surgery, Blood withdrawal
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Antoine Dubray-VautrinDepartment of Head and Neck surgery, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U1331, 26 rue D'Ulm, Saint Cloud, Paris, 75005 , France. antoine.dubrayvautrin@curie.fr.
Olivier ChoussyDepartment of surgical oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Constance LamyDepartment of Drug innovation, D3i, Paris, France.
Grégoire MarretDepartment of Drug innovation, D3i, Paris, France.
Joey MartinDepartment of surgical oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Jerzy KlijanienkoDepartment of pathology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Sophie VacherGenetics Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Ladidi AhmanacheGenetics Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Ivan BiecheGenetics Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Célia DupainDepartment of Drug innovation, D3i, Paris, France.
Christophe Le TourneauDepartment of Head and Neck surgery, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U1331, 26 rue D'Ulm, Saint Cloud, Paris, 75005 , France.
Jimmy MullaertDepartment of Head and Neck surgery, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U1331, 26 rue D'Ulm, Saint Cloud, Paris, 75005 , France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study tackles the challenge of developing reliable prognostic models for time-to-event (TTE) outcomes using high-dimensional omics data in head and neck cancers. Resampling methods, particularly nested cross-validation, are considered as standard for model hyperparameter selection and performance evaluation. When handling clustered data, balancing the random partition of the cross-validation folds to minimize optimism bias and instability could be tested. This work compares the performance of three nested cross-validation implementations, including random assignment of the folds, clustering-based resampling, and internal-external validation using an hold out approach.

methodWe analyzed two head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cohorts: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and SCANDARE (NCT03017573), with clinical data and transcriptomic data normalized as log-transcripts per million. Three model selection methods LASSO, IPF-Lasso, and Priority-LASSO were evaluated within five nested cross-validation frameworks: Standard nested cross-validation, Clustering-based nested-cross validation, nested-cross validation with Combat correction, Nested cross-validation for optimization combined with hold-out for validation, Nested cross-validation for optimization combined with hold-out and ComBat correction for validation. Predictive performance was assessed using 3-year AUC and Integrated Brier Score (IBS).

resultsWe analyzed data from 581 patients (mean age 61.0 years, 33.6% female) across TCGA-HNSC (n = 505) and SCANDARE (n = 76). Clustering analyses, using UMAP and k-means, identified three transcriptomic clusters. Validation strategies demonstrated reduced instability for Lasso (p < 0.001), IPF-Lasso (p < 0.001) and Priority-lasso (p < 0.001) without apparent optimism in discrimination and calibration metrics with stratified nested cross-validation (SNCV), supporting its utility. As an application using IPF-Lasso Cox models with SNCV, we integrated clinical and transcriptomic data, selecting 35 prognosis variables of head and neck carcinomas. This model achieved a 3-year AUC of 0.71 and IBS of 0.08.

conclusionClustering-based nested cross-validation combined with stratified cross-validation offers a robust compromise for developing high-dimensional survival models and evaluating their predictive performance. This approach leverages clustering-derived stratification to balance heterogeneity in the dataset within cross-validation folds, although the training and test sets remain derived from the pooled dataset rather than fully independent cohorts.

Indexed as

GenomicsHead and Neck NeoplasmsSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckCluster AnalysisClustering AlgorithmsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsSurvival AnalysisCox penalizationCross-validationInternal validationMachine learningROCSurvival

Identifiers

PMID41402973
PMCPMC12709853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.