ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Evaluating the application of dynamic prediction models in oncological prognostic studies with repeated measurement predictors.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07644390 (Integration of Subphenotypic Lesions, Imaging-Based Healing Outcomes, and Biomarker Trajectories in a Retrospective Analysis of a Single-Center Retrospective Crohn's Disease Cohort), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Integration of Subphenotypic Lesions, Imaging-Based Healing Outcomes, and Biomarker Trajectories in a Retrospective Analysis of a Single-Center Retrospective Crohn's Disease Cohort
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Management of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating neoantigen-vaccine responses through mechanistic and model-based frameworks.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- ICU Length of Stay Patterns and In-Hospital Mortality: Clinical Determinants in a Tertiary-Care Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent cancer prognosis research emphasizes longitudinal data's importance for survival prediction, yet its analysis challenges researchers, often leading to oversimplified dual-timepoint comparisons (e.g., pre- vs. post-treatment). To meet precision oncology needs, this study evaluated dynamic prediction model (DPM) applications by a cross-sectional analysis of published studies. A comprehensive search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 6,549 records, from which 174 DPMs in 165 studies were analyzed. These studies covered 19 cancers and showed a rising trend in DPM usage (trend test, p < 0.001). Notably, 58.6% of studies used only one dynamic predictor. Seven DPM categories were identified: two-stage models (most common at 32.2%), joint models (28.2%), time-dependent covariate models (12.6%), multi-state models (10.3%), landmark Cox models (8.6%), artificial intelligence (4.6%), and others (3.4%). DPM distribution significantly shifted over 5 years (Chi-square test, p < 0.001), trending towards joint models and AI. We described and compared these DPMs across multiple dimensions, including principles, advantages and limitations, and clinical application scenarios. Joint models, integrating longitudinal and survival data, and artificial intelligence, extracting high-dimensional features, offer promising precision prognosis pathways. Future research should prioritize developing DPMs capable of handling high-dimensional data from smaller samples to improve treatment monitoring and prognosis.
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.