ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
From pathways to prediction: a comparative machine learning framework for prostate cancer survival.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Motivation: Prostate cancer shows substantial clinical and molecular heterogeneity, limiting the prognostic accuracy of conventional clinicopathologic models. Single-gene alterations and tumor mutational burden provide limited prognostic discrimination. Pathway-level genomic abstraction may better capture cumulative oncogenic disruption. Results: Genomic and clinical data from 2231 prostate adenocarcinoma patients were analyzed by mapping somatic mutations to 11 cancer-related signaling pathways. A composite pathway-based risk score integrating pathway burden, p53 pathway status, and high-risk co-alterations was developed and evaluated using survival analysis, Cox regression, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves, and machine-learning models, with generalizability assessed in an independent external cohort. The score stratified patients into distinct risk groups with significantly different overall survival (log-rank P < .0001); each one-point increase was associated with a 31% higher mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.42). The model showed moderate discrimination (concordance index 0.5897) and more stable predictive performance than tumor mutational burden alone. Machine-learning models achieved similar performance, and feature importance analysis identified p53 pathway disruption and pathway burden as key predictors. The proposed framework is a mutation-based genomic risk-stratification tool derived from targeted-sequencing data that provides interpretable prognostic stratification with performance comparable to machine-learning models. Availability and implementation: Available upon request.
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.