ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
Interpretable Machine Learning Models for Overall Survival Prediction in Stage I-II Endometrial Cancer Patients Receiving Postoperative Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A SEER-Based Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
Purpose: Patients with stage I-II endometrial cancer receiving postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy are clinically heterogeneous, and stage alone is insufficient for individualized prognostic assessment. We developed and internally validated interpretable survival models to predict overall survival in this population. Patients and Methods: Female patients with primary endometrial cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2021 were identified from the SEER database. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had stage I-II disease, underwent surgery, and received postoperative systemic therapy/chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to training and internal validation cohorts at a 7:3 ratio, stratified by event status and stage. Cox, LASSO-Cox, random survival forest, gradient boosting machine, and XGBoost survival models were developed using prespecified clinicopathological variables. Performance was evaluated using Harrell's C-index, time-dependent AUC, IPCW Brier score, calibration curves, decision curve analysis, and risk stratification. Results: Overall, 9,118 patients were included, with 6,382 in the training cohort and 2,736 in the validation cohort. The median follow-up was 87.0 months. In the validation cohort, GBM showed the highest but moderate discrimination, with a C-index of 0.6745 and AUCs of 0.7216, 0.7197, and 0.6896 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Cox and LASSO-Cox showed comparable discrimination and better calibration. Important predictors included age, tumor size, histological subtype, stage, radiotherapy, lymph node surgery extent, race, number of regional lymph nodes examined, and time from diagnosis to treatment. GBM-based risk stratification separated patients with distinct overall survival outcomes. Conclusion: Interpretable survival models were developed and internally validated for this clinically heterogeneous population. GBM supported risk stratification, whereas Cox provided calibrated model-based survival estimates within the available clinicopathological framework. The moderate predictive performance and absence of external validation should be considered, and future studies should incorporate additional pathological and molecular predictors.
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.