ArticleThoracic cancer2026
Optimizing Surgery Strategies in Stage IB Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Insights from Interpretable Machine Learning.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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
Abstract
backgroundStage IB lung squamous-cell carcinoma (LSCC) lacks individualized survival prediction tools. There's debate on adjuvant chemotherapy's benefit. This study aimed to develop an interpretable machine-learning model for stage IB LSCC survival prediction and re-evaluate postoperative chemotherapy's added value.
methodsA total of 6445 patients with stage IB LSCC diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were extracted from the SEER database. Patients from 2000 to 2014 (n = 5740) were split 7:3 into training and internal validation cohorts, while those from 2015 (n = 705) served as the external validation cohort. Six machine-learning algorithms (including logistic regression and gradient-boosting models) were trained to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) with hyperparameter optimization via 10-fold cross-validation. SHAP analysis ensured model interpretability, and 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score matching evaluated chemotherapy benefit in completely resected patients.
resultsThe LightGBM model achieved the best discriminative performance (AUC = 0.834, 0.828, 0.800 for 1-, 3-, 5-year OS) with excellent generalizability in external validation. SHAP analysis identified treatment modality as the top survival predictor; both surgery alone and surgery plus chemotherapy improved survival, but no significant OS difference was observed between the two strategies across all timepoints, consistent across subgroups (age, tumor size, etc.). Propensity-score matching of 565 patients confirmed similar outcomes (median OS: 64 vs. 62 months; HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.82-1.20; p = 0.893).
conclusionThis study gives individualized survival estimates for stage IB LSCC, backing a risk-adapted conservative adjuvant treatment approach. High-risk subgroups got no extra benefit from postoperative chemotherapy, which may help integrate precision medicine and shared decision-making in early-stage LSCC management.
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.