ArticleScientific reports2026
Cross-cancer survival prediction using machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among the many challenges faced by healthcare systems, cancer remains one of the most urgent. This makes the application of artificial intelligence a critical tool for enhancing early detection and optimizing treatment strategies, especially given the growing volume of patient data being collected. In this study, machine learning models trained on data for a specific type of cancer were employed to predict three-year survival after diagnosis for other cancer types. Two groups were considered: the most frequent cancers and those related to the digestive system. The data were extracted from the Hospital Based Cancer Registries of São Paulo, covering 2000 to 2019, with a consistent selection protocol across all cancer types to enable cross-prediction. XGBoost and LightGBM algorithms were used, choosing the best-performing model for predictions across different topographies. Using a combined dataset of oral cavity, esophageal, and stomach cancers, the model achieved a balanced accuracy of 80.18%, compared with 79.92% for the stomach-specific model. Statistical testing showed no significant difference between these values, suggesting comparable predictive performance. These results illustrate the potential of cross-prediction, especially for rare cancer types where data scarcity represents a significant challenge.
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.