ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2026
A Vision Transformer- and Radiomics-based Model for Predicting Liver Metastasis-Free Survival in Patients with Rectal Cancer.
Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To develop and validate a multimodal random survival forest (RSF) model integrating three-dimensional vision transformer (ViT-3D) architecture, radiomic features, and clinical variables derived from rectal MR images to predict liver metastasis-free survival (LMFS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients with pathologically confirmed RC treated at three institutions from January 2019 to December 2022. A multimodal RSF model (RSF-combined) incorporating ViT-3D-derived deep learning features, radiomic features, and clinical variables was developed. Comparator RSF, extreme gradient boosting, and Cox proportional hazards models using clinical and MRI-derived data were also constructed. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis. Model interpretability was assessed using Shapley additive explanations analysis to quantify feature contributions to individual risk predictions. Results A total of 548 patients with RC (mean age ± SD, 61.68 years ± 9.93; 356 males) were included (404 for training, 144 for testing). The RSF-combined model outperformed Cox and extreme gradient boosting models in LMFS prediction across all time points, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.72, 0.78, and 0.73 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, in the external test set. Shapley additive explanations summary plots demonstrated how individual feature values dynamically influenced predicted LMFS risk. Risk stratification based on the optimal cutoff and the median RSF-combined risk score yielded significant separation of LMFS curves (log-rank test, hazard ratio: 2.09 [95% CI: 1.20, 3.27],
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.