ArticleThe oncologist2026
Prognostic utility of systemic immune-inflammation markers in locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy.
Article in The oncologist, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo improve survival prediction in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) post-radiotherapy, we developed and compared a nomogram and machine learning (ML) models using immune-inflammatory markers. MATERIAL AND
methodsClinical data from patients with LACC who received radical radiotherapy at our department between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Key variables were selected using Spearman correlation and Boruta analysis. A Cox regression-based nomogram was developed and validated. ML models were also used to predict survival, with performance evaluated by accuracy, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision, recall, and the F1-score. The performance of the optimal ML model and the nomogram was compared using time-dependent predictive accuracy.
resultsA cohort of 300 patients with LACC was randomly allocated to training and validation cohorts at a 7:3 ratio. The nomogram and ML models incorporated immune-inflammatory markers and clinical variables. The nomogram demonstrated strong discriminative ability, calibration, and clinical utility, as evidenced by AUC, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Among ML models, logistic regression achieved superior performance (accuracy = 0.933, recall = 1.000, F1-score = 0.938). Time-dependent accuracy analysis revealed dynamic predictive performance over 12-60 months. The nomogram's predictive accuracy improved over time, reaching 0.611 at 53-59 months, while logistic regression peaked earlier (0.911 at 12-24 months) and consistently outperformed the nomogram.
conclusionBoth nomogram and ML models provide valuable prognostic insights for LACC. The logistic regression ML model showed superior predictive accuracy compared to the nomogram during 1-5 years of follow-up.
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.