ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Beyond AUC: a clinician's guide to building and trusting prediction models in oncology-a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Physiological Data Integration and Predictive Modeling in Intensive Care.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prediction models are central to advancing precision oncology, yet many fail to translate into clinical practice due to methodological flaws and inadequate validation. This review provides a practical, clinician-oriented guide to the statistical principles and advanced methods for developing, validating, and interpreting robust prediction models. Methods: This narrative review used a targeted literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify methodological papers, reporting guidelines, and representative oncology prediction model studies, with a focus on literature published between January 1, 2005, and February 28, 2025. Landmark methodological papers published before 2005 were also included when directly relevant. Rather than performing a systematic review or meta-analysis, we synthesized key statistical principles and illustrative examples to guide clinicians and researchers through model development, validation, interpretation, and clinical translation. Findings: A multifaceted evaluation encompassing discrimination, calibration, clinical utility, and external validation is essential for prediction models. Over-reliance on discrimination metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), while neglecting calibration and clinical utility, can lead to misleading conclusions about a model's value. Rigorous external validation in geographically or temporally distinct cohorts is the most direct test of generalizability, and performance degradation should be interpreted through root-cause analysis rather than treated simply as model failure. Key challenges include managing overfitting, selecting appropriate modeling and validation strategies for different oncology scenarios, addressing special settings such as rare tumors and real-world data, and improving the interpretability of complex "black-box" models. Conclusion: Building a trustworthy prediction model requires a combination of advanced computational methods and rigorous statistical principles. To bridge the gap from model development to clinical impact, researchers must prioritize comprehensive validation, transparent reporting, scenario-appropriate modeling decisions, and critical assessment of a model's real-world utility.
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.