ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Explainable Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Progression-Free Survival in Prostate Cancer: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgression-free survival (PFS) is a critical end point in oncology, yet real-world applications of individualized, explainable machine learning (ML) predictions remain limited.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate explainable ML models to predict PFS using retrospective data from a national prostate cancer cohort in Brunei Darussalam.
methodsWe analyzed a retrospective cohort of 212 patients (478 longitudinal observations) treated at the Brunei Cancer Centre (January 2018 to December 2024). Clinical, laboratory, and treatment data were harmonized, with missing values imputed via extremely randomized trees. Longitudinal patterns were captured using a recurrent autoencoder to generate latent representations. We compared 4 modeling approaches: Cox proportional hazards, random survival forest (RSF), gradient boosting survival (GBS), and deep neural network survival models. Performance was evaluated using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Harrell C-index, and integrated Brier score (IBS), with Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) used for interpretability.
resultsRSF demonstrated improved discriminative performance and balanced calibration, achieving a C-index of 0.906 and AUCs of 0.941 and 0.917 at 4 and 5 years (IBS=0.0698). In contrast, the traditional CPH model performed poorly (C-index 0.531 and AUC 0.706 at 4 years and 0.833 at 5 years). Deep survival (AUCs of 0.941 at 4 years and 0.917 at 5 years, C-index 0.719, and IBS=0.0887) and GBS (AUCs of 0.765 at 4 years and 0.833 at 5 years, C-index 0.844, and IBS=0.0590) models showed moderate performance. SHAP analysis identified sodium, alanine aminotransferase, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, platelet count, and specific treatment categories as key drivers of increased progression risk.
conclusionsTree-based ensemble approaches, particularly RSF integrated with SHAP, offer high accuracy for personalized risk stratification in prostate cancer. These findings highlight the potential of explainable ML to enhance clinical decision-making. However, external validation in a larger multi-institutional, multiomics dataset is required before routine clinical implementation.
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.