ArticleCancer informatics2026
A Machine Learning Approach to Prognostication in Oral Cancer: Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.
Article in Cancer informatics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate machine learning models to predict 5-year survival in oral cancer using a large population-based registry and to rank prognostic factors. Methods: We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1992 to 2020. After applying inclusion criteria, 39 904 patients with complete data on 21 variables were included from 53 611 cases (25.6% exclusion). Selection bias was assessed by comparing included and excluded patients. The outcome was binary 5-year survival. Four models were trained and evaluated using nested fivefold cross-validation: XGBoost, LASSO, Random Forest, and logistic regression. Performance was assessed using the Brier score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Calibration was evaluated using slope and intercept with 95% confidence intervals. Model explainability used permutation feature importance and SHAP values. Results: Random Forest showed the best discrimination (AUC 77.6%, accuracy 71.4%, Brier 0.186) and was selected for risk stratification. However, it overestimated risk in lower deciles. Logistic regression and LASSO showed better calibration, with slopes near 1.0, but slightly lower discrimination (AUCs 75.5% and 76.9%). SHAP analysis identified localized stage as the strongest protective factor (importance 100.0), followed by age (91.1) and chemotherapy (29.3). Excluded patients had more unstaged tumors (3.9% vs 1.7%, Conclusion: Random Forest provides strong risk stratification, but miscalibration limits its use for absolute risk prediction. Logistic regression and LASSO may be preferable when accurate probabilities are needed. External validation is required before clinical use.
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.