ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
A feature selection-based oblique hyperplane for oblique random survival forests.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
backgroundRecently, several machine learning (ML) algorithms for right-censored data, including Oblique Random Survival Forest (ORSF), have been utilized to develop risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and oncology research. ORSF employs hyperplanes to represent a singular split, as opposed to the conventional univariate (axis) based approach, such as Random Survival Forest (RSF). However, ORSF encounters a hurdle in identifying the relevant features while constructing the hyperplane. Hence, we aim to propose and evaluate the predictive performance of three novel feature selection-based hyperplanes for ORSF.
methodsWe propose three variants of ORSF: (a) ORSF-LASSO, based on LASSO regression, (b) ORSF-MRMR, based on the Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (MRMR) framework, and (c) ORSF-CARS, based on correlation-adjusted regression survival (CARS) score. Nine versions of these variants were evaluated against the Penalized Cox Proportional Hazards Model, RSF, and the original ORSF on ten public CVD and oncology datasets using Harrell’s C-index, D-Calibration, and integrated Brier score (IBS). The models were trained using three-fold cross-validation in R version 4.2.1 and the mlr3 ecosystem.
resultsThe newly proposed models have shown high discrimination in CVD datasets, with ORSF-LASSO-min being the most consistently best-performing model. Furthermore, in CVD datasets, one of the proposed models demonstrated the lowest D-calibration compared to existing models. In oncology datasets, one or more new models outperformed existing models in three out of five datasets. ORSF-MRMR-3q, a novel model, exhibited the lowest D-calibration across two oncology datasets. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the performance of the newly proposed methods aligned with the primary analysis.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the three proposed new variants have the potential to predict time-to-event outcomes in CVD and oncology prognosis research. Nonetheless, the proposed methods need to be validated in comprehensive and varied datasets with prolonged follow-up periods and across multiple health domains.
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.