ArticleCureus2026
Human Versus Machine in Survival Prediction for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate survival prediction in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is critical for guiding treatment decisions, yet remains challenging, particularly for intermediate survival durations. We compared the accuracy of oncologist judgment, surgeon-calculated Tokuhashi scores, and ChatGPT-assisted predictions in estimating survival outcomes in MSCC patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included 100 patients (n = 100) referred to the Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, a tertiary spinal oncology center in Nottingham, United Kingdom, with radiologically confirmed MSCC. Anonymized clinical data were used to calculate surgeon Tokuhashi scores, document oncologist-estimated life expectancy, and generate ChatGPT-assisted survival predictions based on both literature review and Tokuhashi calculation. Predictions were compared against actual survival outcomes (<6 months, six to 12 months, >12 months). Machine learning analyses identified key predictors of survival.
resultsOverall prediction accuracy was 53% for ChatGPT Tokuhashi-based predictions, 49% for surgeon Tokuhashi scores, 47% for oncologist judgment, and 36% for ChatGPT literature-based estimates. Recall for short survival (<6 months) was the highest with the surgeon (70%) and ChatGPT Tokuhashi (68%) methods, whereas intermediate survival (six to 12 months) remained difficult to predict across all modalities. For long-term survival (>12 months), oncologists performed better (74% recall). Functional status (Karnofsky score) and patient age emerged as the strongest survival predictors across logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, and XGBoost models, surpassing primary tumor type and metastasis burden.
conclusionsStructured prognostic tools and AI-assisted scoring can complement clinical judgment in predicting short-term survival in MSCC. However, intermediate-term survival prediction remains a critical unmet need. Future prognostic strategies should prioritize dynamic functional metrics over static tumor classifications to improve personalized decision-making.
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.