Association Between Risk Factors and Major Cancers: Explainable Machine Learning Approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Cancer is a life-threatening disease and a leading cause of death worldwide, with an estimated 611,000 deaths and over 2 million new cases in the United States in 2024. The rising incidence of major cancers, including among younger individuals, highlights the need for early screening and monitoring of risk factors to manage and decrease cancer risk. Objective: This study aimed to leverage explainable machine learning models to identify and analyze the key risk factors associated with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. By uncovering significant associations between risk factors and these major cancer types, we sought to enhance the understanding of cancer diagnosis risk profiles. Our goal was to facilitate more precise screening, early detection, and personalized prevention strategies, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and promoting health equity. Methods: Deidentified electronic health record data from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III was used to identify patients with 4 types of cancer who had longitudinal hospital visits prior to their diagnosis presence. Their records were matched and combined with those of patients without cancer diagnoses using propensity scores based on demographic factors. Three advanced models, penalized logistic regression, random forest, and multilayer perceptron (MLP), were conducted to identify the rank of risk factors for each cancer type, with feature importance analysis for random forest and MLP models. The rank biased overlap was adopted to compare the similarity of ranked risk factors across cancer types. Results: Our framework evaluated the prediction performance of explainable machine learning models, with the MLP model demonstrating the best performance. It achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 for breast cancer (n=58), 0.76 for colorectal cancer (n=140), 0.84 for lung cancer (n=398), and 0.78 for prostate cancer (n=104), outperforming other baseline models (P<.001). In addition to demographic risk factors, the most prominent nontraditional risk factors overlapped across models and cancer types, including hyperlipidemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.11-1.17; P<.01), diabetes (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.29-1.39; P<.01), depressive disorders (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06-1.16; P<.01), heart diseases (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32-1.52; P<.01), and anemia (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.14-1.30; P<.01). The similarity analysis indicated the unique risk factor pattern for lung cancer from other cancer types. Conclusions: The study's findings demonstrated the effectiveness of explainable ML models in assessing nontraditional risk factors for major cancers and highlighted the importance of considering unique risk profiles for different cancer types. Moreover, this research served as a hypothesis-generating foundation, providing preliminary results for future investigation into cancer diagnosis risk analysis and management. Furthermore, expanding collaboration with clinical experts for external validation would be essential to refine model outputs, integrate findings into practice, and enhance their impact on patient care and cancer prevention efforts.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».