ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Application of machine learning models to explore prognosis and cause of death in advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus ablation therapy versus liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with clinically significant portal hypertension by an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Influential factors affecting the survival benefit of combined neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: an analysis based on the SEER database.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was aimed at examining the causes of death (CODs) in patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) undergoing chemotherapy (CT). In addition, machine learning models were incorporated to predict the treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ICC and identify the factors most closely related to prognosis.
methodsA total of 5564 patients (CT group, 3632; non-CT group, 1932) were included in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries between 2000 and 2020. The CODs were compared between the two groups before and after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Furthermore, seven machine learning models were utilized as predictive tools to select variable features, aiming to assess the therapeutic effectiveness in patients with advanced ICC.
resultsAfter IPTW, the CT group exhibited a lower cumulative incidence of cholangiocarcinoma-related deaths (30%, 49%, and 73% vs. 59%, 66%, and 73%; P < 0.001), secondary malignant neoplasms (8.5%, 13%, and 20% vs. 19%, 22%, and 24%; P < 0.001), and other CODs (1.8%, 2.9%, and 4.4% vs. 4.1%, 4.6%, and 5.4%; P < 0.001) at 0.5-, 1-, and 3- years than the non-CT group, whereas the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases (P = 0.4) was comparable between the two groups. Of the seven machine learning models, the random forest model showed the highest predictive effectiveness. This model verified that variables such as CT, radiotherapy, tumor dimensions, sex, and distant metastasis were strongly correlated with the prognosis of advanced ICC.
conclusionsCT has improved the therapeutic efficacy of advanced ICC without significantly increasing other CODs. Furthermore, the analysis of various features using machine learning models has confirmed that the random forest model demonstrates the highest predictive performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.