ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
A clustering-stratified cross-validation framework for validating omics survival models: application to head and neck cancer.
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.
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.
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)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Exploratory immunomonitoring during radiochemotherapy in HNSCC and machine-learning reveal immune parameters associated with disease-free survival.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Multi-omics data integration using time-to event endpoint and supervised Cox penalized regression: a comprehensive review.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.