ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Ovarian cancer recurrence prediction: comparing confirmatory to real-world predictors with machine learning.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. 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.
- Beyond classical models: LLM-driven survival analysis for breast cancer prognosis using European cancer registry data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers in women, frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage, with a 5-year survival rate of 17%-28% in advanced-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics IIB-IV) disease. Machine learning (ML) may provide a better tool for survival prognosis than traditional methods and could provide insight into predictive factors. This study focuses on advanced-stage ovarian cancer and contrasts expert-derived predictive factors with data-driven ones from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) to predict progression-free survival. Materials and methods: A Delphi questionnaire was conducted to identify 14 predictive factors which were included in the final analysis. ML models (regularized Cox regression, random survival forests, and XGBoost) were used to compare the Delphi expert-based set of variables with a real-world data (RWD) variable set derived from the NCR. A non-regularized Cox model was used as the benchmark. Results: While regularized Cox models with the RWD variable set outperformed the traditional Cox regression with the Delphi variables (c-index: 0.70 versus 0.64, respectively), XGBoost showed the best performance overall (c-index: 0.75). The most predictive factors for recurrence, not identified by Delphi, were surgery type and debulking results, post-operative chemotherapy administration, number of platinum cycles, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions: Our results highlight that ML algorithms have higher predictive power compared with the traditional Cox regression. Moreover, RWD from a cancer registry identified more predictive variables than a panel of experts. Overall, these results have important implications for artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted clinical prognosis and provide insight into the differences between AI-driven and expert-based decision making in survival prediction.
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.