ArticleiScience2026
Machine learning based prognostic model for oral squamous cell carcinoma using SEER data and external validation.
Article in iScience, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is characterized by an insidious onset, pronounced aggressiveness, and a substantial impact on patient survival. Current prognostication relies heavily on the TNM staging system, which often lacks precision. To address this, we developed and validated a machine learning (ML)-based prognostic nomogram. Analyzing 8,927 patients from the SEER database, we employed ML algorithms (LASSO, XGBoost, random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM)) to identify key determinants, including age, race, sex, grade, and TNM stage, and constructed a Cox-based risk model. Crucially, benchmarking analysis demonstrated that our model achieved a C-index of 0.714, significantly outperforming the traditional TNM staging system (C-index: 0.665,
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.