ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning-based mapping of multimodal treatment allocations and prognostic implications of clinical concordance in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning models of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment usually examine one modality. We developed interpretable models of historical surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy receipt in SEER. We assessed regional transportability and associations between observed treatment-model concordance and survival. We analyzed 186,712 patients with NSCLC diagnosed in 2010-2022 in SEER. The development and nonoverlapping geographic validation cohorts included 72,995 and 113,717 patients, respectively. Seven algorithms modeled historical treatment receipt, interpreted using SHAP. Survival analyses used PSM, 60-month RMST, Fine-Gray and time-varying Cox models, and a 3-month landmark analysis. XGBoost achieved internal/geographic AUROCs of 0.893/0.885 for surgery and 0.853/0.835 for chemotherapy. LightGBM yielded 0.766/0.749 for radiotherapy. Tumor stage, N stage, and age led predictions. Global tests rejected proportional hazards in all nine Cox models; RMST was the primary survival summary. At 60 months, overall-survival RMST differences were 15.41 months for surgery, 9.71 for chemotherapy, and 1.40 for radiotherapy (all P < 0.001). Exploratory radiotherapy analyses showed higher all-cause mortality in stages I (HR 1.564) and II (HR 1.321; both P < 0.001). Radiotherapy survival curves crossed near 35 months; the 3-month landmark overall-survival RMST difference was - 2.94 months. Interpretable ML models captured historical multimodal treatment receipt in SEER. Concordance was associated with survival, but associations varied by modality, stage, and follow-up time. Residual confounding precludes treatment-effect or clinical-utility interpretations. These models should not guide treatment before independent prospective validation with richer clinical, molecular, and treatment-timing data.
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.