Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025

Author Spotlight: Advancing Alzheimer's Research – Exploring Early Detection and Multi-Omics Approaches
Published on: December 15, 2023
Survival prediction for patients with glioblastoma multiforme using a Cox proportional hazards denoising autoencoder
Ting Yan1, Zhenpeng Yan1, Lili Liu1
1Key Laboratory of Cellular Physiology of the Ministry of Education, Department of Pathology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China.
Objectives:
This study aimed to establish and validate a prognostic model based on magnetic resonance imaging and clinical features to predict the survival time of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).
Methods:
In this study, a convolutional denoising autoencoder (DAE) network combined with the loss function of the Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to extract features for survival prediction. In addition, the Kaplan-Meier curve, the Schoenfeld residual analysis, the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve, the nomogram, and the calibration curve were performed to assess the survival prediction ability.
Results:
The concordance index (C-index) of the survival prediction model, which combines the DAE and the Cox proportional hazard regression model, reached 0.78 in the training set, 0.75 in the validation set, and 0.74 in the test set. Patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on the median prognostic index (PI). Kaplan-Meier curve was used for survival analysis (p = < 2e-16 in the training set, p = 3e-04 in the validation set, and p = 0.007 in the test set), which showed that the survival probability of different groups was significantly different, and the PI of the network played an influential role in the prediction of survival probability. In the residual verification of the PI, the fitting curve of the scatter plot was roughly parallel to the x-axis, and the p-value of the test was 0.11, proving that the PI and survival time were independent of each other and the survival prediction ability of the PI was less affected than survival time. The areas under the curve of the training set were 0.843, 0.871, 0.903, and 0.941; those of the validation set were 0.687, 0.895, 1.000, and 0.967; and those of the test set were 0.757, 0.852, 0.683, and 0.898.
Conclusion:
The survival prediction model, which combines the DAE and the Cox proportional hazard regression model, can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with GBM.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
07:15Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Truncation in Survival Analysis
Left truncation occurs when individuals who experienced the event of interest before a certain time are not included in the study. This is often due to a "delayed entry" into the study where only those who survive until a certain entry point are...