ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Survival prediction for Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia by machine learning analysis: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanistic learning to predict and understand minimal residual disease.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop an efficient survival model for predicting event-free survival (EFS) in patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Methods: Data related to Ph-like ALL were collected from the South China Children's Leukemia Group (SCCLG) multicenter study conducted from October 2016 to July 2021. A model for predicting the survival of patients with Ph-like ALL was built using Cox proportional hazards regression, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and gradient boosting machine techniques. By integrating indicators including the concordance index (C-index), 1-, 3-, and 5-year area-under-the-receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), Brier score, and decision curve analysis, the predictive capabilities of each model were compared. Results: The random forest algorithm demonstrated the most robust predictive performance. In the test set, the C-index of the random forest model was 0.797 (95% CI: 0.736-0.821; P < 0.001). The AUROCs for 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.787 (95% CI: 0.62-0.953; P < 0.001), 0.797 (95% CI: 0.589-1; P < 0.001), and 0.861 (95% CI: 0.606-1; P < 0.001), respectively. The Brier scores for 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.102 (95% CI: 0.032-0.173; P < 0.001), 0.126 (95% CI: 0.063-0.19; P < 0.001), and 0.121 (95% CI: 0.051-0.19; P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: The random forest model effectively predicted the survival outcomes of patients with Ph-like ALL, which can aid clinicians to conduct personalized prognosis assessments in advance. Based on a web-based calculator, using random forest prediction models to calculate the prognosis of Ph-like ALL (https://songxiaodan03.shinyapps.io/RFpredictionmodelforPHlikeALL/) could facilitate healthcare professionals in carrying out clinical evaluation.
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.