ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Efficacy analysis and survival prediction of unique chemotherapy regimens for osteosarcoma in China.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a unique chemotherapy regimen, identify factors influencing overall survival (OS), and compare the predictive performance of six machine learning models in Chinese osteosarcoma patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 390 patients with osteosarcoma who were treated between 2009 and 2019. All patients received standardized neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ifosfamide + methotrexate + adriamycin or ifosfamide + adriamycin + cisplatin, depending on age) and subsequent surgery. Clinical and pathological data were collected. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Multivariate analysis and survival prediction were conducted using Cox proportional hazards models and six machine learning algorithms [random forest (RF), AdaBoost, CatBoost, Extra Trees, XGBoost, and LightGBM) validated via five-fold cross-validation. Clinical net benefit was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The cohort had a mean age of 19 years, with 62.47% male participants and 88.82% diagnosed at stage II. The 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 76.00% (95% CI: 71.60%-80.40%) and 65.00% (95% CI: 60.20%-69.80%), respectively. Multiple factors-including tumor type, surgical method, recurrence/metastasis, tumor necrosis rate, and serum biomarkers (lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), platelet count (PLT), white blood cell count (WBC), and red blood cell count (RBC))-were significantly associated with OS. Among the machine learning models, RF and Extra Trees demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.960), followed by CatBoost (0.942), AdaBoost (0.897), LightGBM (0.879), and XGBoost (0.853). Calibration curves showed excellent agreement between predicted and observed survival probabilities. DCA confirmed that RF and Extra Trees provided superior net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities. Conclusion: The unique chemotherapy regimen showed superior survival outcomes. Prognostic evaluation should integrate multiple clinical and pathological indicators. Machine learning models, particularly RF and Extra Trees, offer powerful tools for individualized survival prediction and treatment planning in osteosarcoma.
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.