ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and internal validation of a machine-learning model for 3-year mortality after lung cancer resection: an online risk calculator and nomogram.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and postoperative risk stratification may support individualized surveillance after pulmonary resection. This study aimed to develop and internally validate an exploratory prediction model for 3-year postoperative mortality using routinely available clinical, pathological, and laboratory variables, while explicitly addressing outcome ascertainment, model calibration, and the limitations of a single-center retrospective cohort. Methods: LASSO regression was used for feature selection, followed by a comparison of seven algorithms: Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Artificial Neural Network, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Model discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve performance were evaluated in a 7:3 internal hold-out split. The final model was selected primarily according to an internal-validation AUC, with calibration and classification metrics considered jointly. A web-based calculator and a nomogram were developed from the final model. Results: In the final outcome-ascertained analytic sample, 166 of 350 patients (47.43%) were classified as having died within 36 months and 184 (52.57%) were alive beyond 36 months. This proportion describes the event composition of the selected analytic cohort and should not be interpreted as a population-level postoperative mortality estimate. Six predictors were retained by LASSO: T stage, airway dissemination, pleural invasion, Ki-67 index, BMI, and direct bilirubin. Random Forest showed perfect apparent discrimination in the training set (AUC = 1.00) but decreased to 0.73 in validation. Logistic regression achieved the highest validation AUC (0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87), with an accuracy of 0.75, an F1 score of 0.73, and a Brier score of 0.187, and was therefore selected as the final model. Conclusion: The final logistic regression model provided moderate internal discrimination and an interpretable framework for exploratory 3-year mortality risk estimation after lung cancer resection. The nomogram and web-based calculator facilitated model visualization, but the outcome-ascertained analytic cohort, potential event enrichment, and absence of external validation limited the interpretation of absolute risk and direct clinical application. Therefore, an independent multicenter and prospective validation with appropriate recalibration is required.
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.