ArticleCancers2026
A Treatment Decision Model for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Based on Bayesian Networks.
Article in Cancers, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most prevalent non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) is cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which is typically treated surgically. For patients with advanced or inoperable disease, systemic therapies-particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors-have become increasingly important. The anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody Cemiplimab was approved for the treatment of advanced cSCC, providing patients who are unable to receive conventional therapy with additional options.
methodsIn this study, we developed a clinical decision support tool based on Bayesian networks (BNs) to help clinicians choose the most suitable treatment strategies for cSCC. The model can manage missing or uncertain data and includes patient-specific clinical, histological, and genetic information, such as tumor type, stage, and PD-L1 expression.
resultsUsing data from 66 patients with either basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cSCC, we retrospectively validated the model by comparing the treatment recommendations from the tool with the actual choices made by multidisciplinary tumor boards. The model demonstrated an overall accuracy of 95.5% and statistical significance with a
conclusionsOur results suggest that BNs are a valuable tool for representing complex clinical decision-making processes.
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.