Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38515707›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Predicting mortality and recurrence in colorectal cancer: Comparative assessment of predictive models.

Shayeste Alinia, Mohammad Asghari-Jafarabadi, Leila Mahmoudi, Ghodratollah Roshanaei, Maliheh Safari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Advancements in Cancer Survival Prediction: A Systematic Review of Classical and Modern Approaches.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shayeste AliniaDepartment of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
Mohammad Asghari-JafarabadiRoad Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Leila MahmoudiDepartment of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
Ghodratollah RoshanaeiModeling of Non-communicable Diseases Research Canter, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Maliheh SafariDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as colorectal cancer, is a significant disease marked by high fatality rates, ranking as the third leading cause of global mortality. The main objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of predictive models in predicting both mortality events and the probability of disease recurrence. Method: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 284 individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2001 and 2017. Demographic and clinical data, including gender, disease stage, age at diagnosis, recurrence status, and treatment details, were meticulously recorded. We rigorously evaluated various predictive models, including Decision Trees, Random Forests, Random Survival Forests (RSF), Gradient Boosting, mboost, Deep Learning Neural Network (DLNN), and Cox regression. Performance metrics, such as sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area), and overall accuracy, were calculated for each model to predict mortality and disease recurrence. The analysis was performed using R version 4.1.3 software and the Python programming language. Results: For mortality prediction, the mboost model demonstrated the highest sensitivity at 96.9% (95% CI: 0.83-0.99) and an ROC area of 0.88. It also exhibited high specificity at 80% (95% CI: 0.59-0.93), a positive predictive value of 86.1% (95% CI: 0.70-0.95), and an overall accuracy of 89% (95% CI: 0.78-0.96). Random Forests showed perfect sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 0.85-1) but had low specificity at 0% (95% CI: 0-0.52) and poor overall accuracy (50%). On the other hand, DLNN had the lowest performance metrics for mortality prediction, with a sensitivity of 24% (95% CI: 0.222-0.268), specificity of 75% (95% CI: 0.73-0.77), and a lower positive predictive value of 42% (95% CI: 0.38-0.45). The Gradient Boosting model showed the best performance in predicting recurrence, achieving perfect sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 0.87-1) and high specificity at 92.9% (95% CI: 0.76-0.99). It also had a high positive predictive value of 93.3% (95% CI: 0.77-0.99). Gradient Boosting, with an ROC area of 96.4%, and mboost, with an ROC area of 75%, demonstrated remarkable performance. DLNN had the lowest performance metrics for recurrence prediction, with sensitivity at 1.75% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02), specificity at 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.98), and a lower positive predictive value at 52.6% (95% CI: 0.39-0.65). Conclusion: In summary, the mboost model demonstrated outstanding performance in predicting mortality, achieving exceptional results across various evaluation metrics. Random Forests exhibited perfect sensitivity but showed poor specificity and overall accuracy. The DLNN model displayed the lowest performance metrics for mortality prediction. In terms of recurrence prediction, the Gradient Boosting model outperformed other models with perfect sensitivity, high specificity, and positive predictive value. The DLNN model had the lowest performance metrics for recurrence prediction. Overall, the results emphasize the effectiveness of the mboost and Gradient Boosting models in predicting mortality and recurrence in colorectal cancer patients.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerCox regressionCurative surgeryDeep learning neural network (DLNN)Early recurrenceMachine learningSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID38515707
PMCPMC10955293

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.