ArticleScientific reports2026
Multi-task survival modeling of dependent failure and reimplantation events in dental implants.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dental implant failure and subsequent reimplantation are sequential clinical events influenced by complex, patient-specific factors. Traditional survival models often fail to capture the conditional dependencies in multi-stage outcomes. This study introduces a multi-task survival framework that integrates conditional masking, attention-based feature interactions, monotonicity regularization, and dependency alignment to jointly predict implant failure and subsequent reimplantation. The model was trained on real-world data from 1,627 patients with 57 clinical features. Model performance was assessed using five-fold center-blocked cross-validation across multiple discretization intervals. The proposed approach achieved superior predictive accuracy. For implant failure, the concordance index was 0.8133, the area under the curve was 0.8321, and the Brier score was 0.1354. For reimplantation, these metrics were 0.9722, 0.9885, and 0.0352, respectively, using inverse probability of censoring weighting to ensure valid time-dependent discrimination and calibration under right censoring. The framework consistently outperformed established survival models, including classical statistical methods such as Cox proportional hazards and deep learning approaches such as DeepSurv. Risk scores effectively discriminated and tracked progression across patient groups. Feature importance analyses revealed both shared and stage-specific predictors, and calibration curves confirmed the reliability of the estimates. This framework models sequential implant outcomes and provides individualized risk estimates that may inform personalized treatment planning, monitoring, and clinical decision-making.
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.