PD07-08 MACHINE LEARNING TO PREDICT RECURRENCE OF LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation/Staging/Surveillance I (PD07)1 Apr 2019PD07-08 MACHINE LEARNING TO PREDICT RECURRENCE OF LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA Yanbo Guo*, Luis Braga, and Anil Kapoor Yanbo Guo*Yanbo Guo* More articles by this author , Luis BragaLuis Braga More articles by this author , and Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555241.27498.f6AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased. This has been largely explained by the increased use of diagnostic imaging, leading to the incidental discovery of localized tumors. Localized RCC has a five-year survival rate of nearly 90% but there remains a 20 to 30% risk of recurrence after curative treatment. Thus, these patients are placed on routine surveillance with annual abdominal imaging at a minimum. However, there is no consensus on surveillance protocols as recurrence rates vary greatly between patients. Current guidelines stratify patients between two to three risk categories based upon their pathologic grade, tumor and node (T & N) stage. Nomograms that incorporate other variables are available but they also rely upon pathologic findings. Our objective is to use a cloud-based machine learning (ML) platform to develop a model for recurrence after curative treatment of localized RCC using pre and post-operative variables. METHODS: A de-identified localized RCC database from our institution was uploaded to the Microsoft® Azure Machine Learning Studio. The variables were categorized and missing values were cleaned. The dataset was then split into a training and a testing group. Two ML models were trained, a two-class neuro network model and a two-class boosted decision tree model, both fundamental and common approaches in ML. These models were then evaluated using the area under curve (AUC) of a receiver operator characteristic curve and compared to determine the optimized model. RESULTS: 697 patients were a part of the dataset. Variables included were age, sex, tumor laterality, radical or partial nephrectomy, T & N staging, margin status and Fuhrman grade. The optimized model achieved an AUC of 0.877. Setting a threshold to maximize sensitivity, there was a sensitivity of 89.47%, a specificity of 71.95%, and positive predictive value of 3.19. CONCLUSIONS: We built an accurate RCC recurrence prediction model using an accessible cloud-based ML platform. This approach offers advantages over traditional statistics, including the ability to easily incorporate new data and rapidly distribute updates. Our institution's dataset is a part of a larger national dataset which we aim to incorporate into future iterations. At its current stage, this model's performance still favourably compares to existing nomograms. With more accurate prognostication of recurrence, we can better counsel patients and individualize surveillance strategies, allowing us to minimize ineffective investigations and identify high-risk patients who truly benefit from close follow up. Source of Funding: Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada and Canadian Urologic Oncology Group Research Trainee Award Hamilton, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e145-e145 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yanbo Guo* More articles by this author Luis Braga More articles by this author Anil Kapoor More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».