ArticleZhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences2026
[Construction of a prognosis forecasting model for immuno-therapy response in cancer patients by integrating routine clinical parameters and tumor mutational burden].
Article in Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a machine-learning model that integrates routine clinical parameters with tumor mutational burden (TMB) and to evaluate its performance in predicting responses to programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) inhibitors across various cancer types.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 146 patients with advanced solid tumors who were treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The cohort was randomly divided into a training set (
resultsNNT9 was identified as the optimal model, and the history of systemic therapy, TMB, platelet count, and BMI were the four most important predictive features. NNT9 achieved AUCs of 0.949 and 0.851 in the training and validation sets, respectively, outperforming TMB alone (AUCs: 0.747 and 0.720). In the validation set, NNT9 also demonstrated superior sensitivity (0.571), accuracy (0.867), F1 score (0.667), positive predictive value (0.800), and negative predictive value (0.880). The confusion matrix revealed that NNT9 misclassified only half as many patients as TMB alone in the validation set. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients predicted to be responders by NNT9 had significantly longer PFS than non-responders in both training and validation sets (both
conclusionsThe NNT9 model, which integrates readily available clinical parameters with TMB, represents an accurate and clinically feasible tool for predicting immunotherapy benefit in a pan-cancer cohort, and shows promise for clinical translation.
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.