ArticlePloS one2026
Patent license prediction using deep survival analysis: A comparative study.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluate deep survival analysis frameworks for patent licensing prediction, systematically comparing cure rate models against standard approaches and quantifying the benefit of temporal modeling over static classification to address unresolved methodological questions following recent applications of neural survival models to patent contexts.
methodsWe conducted experimental validation on 624,129 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patents (2016-2017), comparing classical Cox regression, deep neural network baseline, DeepSurv (neural Cox proportional hazards), and Cox cure rate models. Performance was evaluated using Recall@K metrics across 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year prediction horizons, with statistical significance assessed through patent-level bootstrap resampling (B = 1,000).
resultsAll deep learning approaches achieve high performance (Recall@10% 89.8-91.9%), substantially outperforming classical Cox regression (70.6-72.3%). Among neural architectures, DeepSurv-a standard neural Cox proportional hazards model-offers the optimal balance of simplicity and performance. More complex cure rate extensions provided no clear additional benefit over standard DeepSurv within the scope of this study: although bootstrap resampling detected a small but statistically significant difference (0.70 percentage points), this gap is practically negligible for patent screening, suggesting that explicit population heterogeneity modeling offers limited practical gains when deep feature learning is employed. Survival modeling provides statistically detectable but modest gains over static binary classification (Recall@10% differences of 0.5-1.6 percentage points), indicating that the primary value stems from capturing complex patent characteristics rather than explicit temporal modeling.
conclusionThis study provides, to the best of our knowledge, the first systematic evaluation of cure rate models and temporal modeling benefits for patent licensing prediction, demonstrating that architectural simplicity (DeepSurv) achieves near-optimal performance (Recall@10% 91%) when deep feature learning is prioritized. The findings offer actionable guidance for patent portfolio management: invest in feature learning infrastructure rather than architectural sophistication.
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.