ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Development and internal validation of a prognostic model for esophageal cancer liver metastases using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate survival prediction for patients with advanced esophageal cancer (EC) and liver metastases is critical for clinical decision-making. However, existing nomograms often lack sufficient precision. To address this limitation, this study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model to improve predictive accuracy. Methods: Data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for patients diagnosed with EC and liver metastases between 2010 and 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to training and internal test sets in a 7:3 ratio. Six ML models-Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Iterative Dichotomiser 3 (ID3)-were trained using clinical variables from the training set. Model selection was performed via the DeLong test. Performance was rigorously evaluated in the internal test set using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC), calibration plots, confusion matrices, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Model interpretability was achieved using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method. Results: A total of 1,760 patients with EC and liver metastases were included. Among the 6 models, the LR model demonstrated the best performance. In the internal test set, the model achieved an AUC of 0.764 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.735-0.791] for predicting 6-month survival status, with a sensitivity of 0.641 (95% CI: 0.600-0.680) and a specificity of 0.788 (95% CI: 0.749-0.820). For predicting 1-year survival, the AUC was 0.792 (95% CI: 0.753-0.830), with a sensitivity of 0.784 (95% CI: 0.736-0.831) and a specificity of 0.675 (95% CI: 0.616-0.736). The calibration curve indicated good agreement (the Brier score of 6-month was 0.240, 95% CI: 0.238-0.241; the Brier score of 1-year was 0.158, 95% CI: 0.143-0.175). DCA confirmed the model's net clinical benefit within a reasonable threshold range. SHAP analysis revealed that receipt of chemotherapy was the most important variable influencing prognosis prediction. Conclusions: The LR-based model demonstrates favorable predictive performance and may serve as a reference for short-term survival assessment in patients with EC and liver metastases, with receipt of chemotherapy identified as the key predictive variable.
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.