ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Interpretable Machine Learning for Survival Prediction in Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A Population-Based Study With External Validation.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative Complications After Lung Cancer Resection in Patients with a Previous History of Head and Neck Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Predictive modeling for survival-related outcomes in lung cancer patients with brain metastases: a mini-review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The Five-Decade Journey of Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancer communications (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionBrain metastases (BM) represent a common and fatal progression in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), yet prognostic tools for this population remain underdeveloped. This study aimed to establish and externally validate a machine learning-based model to predict overall survival (OS) in SCLC patients with BM.MethodsWe extracted clinical data from 2392 SCLC patients with BM from the SEER database to construct prognostic models using Cox regression, AJCC staging, and four machine learning algorithms: Random Survival Forest (RSF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Elastic Net (Enet), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Key features were selected via Lasso-Cox regression. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent AUC, calibration curves, Brier scores, precision-recall (PR) curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). SHAP and partial dependence plots were applied for model interpretability. External validation was conducted using an independent hospital-based cohort of 85 patients, with comparability to the SEER cohort addressed through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).ResultsAmong all models, the RSF algorithm demonstrated the best overall performance. In the training cohort, it achieved AUCs of 0.738 and 0.809 for 1-year and 2-year OS, respectively. In the internal validation cohort, AUCs were 0.718 and 0.748, and in the external validation cohort, 0.686 and 0.802, respectively. The RSF model also showed favorable calibration and the lowest Brier scores across datasets. SHAP analysis ranked chemotherapy, liver metastasis, N stage, and age as the most influential prognostic features. A web-based calculator was developed to enable real-time individualized risk prediction.ConclusionsThis study presents a robust, interpretable, and externally validated RSF-based model for predicting OS in SCLC patients with BM. The model offers clinically relevant insights and is accessible via an online tool, supporting its potential integration into personalized treatment 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.