Data Mining in Bone Marrow Transplant Records to Identify Patients With High Odds of Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients undergoing a bone marrow stem cell transplant (BMT) face various risk factors. Analyzing data from past transplants could enhance the understanding of the factors influencing success. Records up to 120 measurements per transplant procedure from 1751 patients undergoing BMT were collected (Shariati Hospital). Collaborative filtering techniques allowed the processing of highly sparse records with 22.3% missing values. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate the performance of various classification algorithms trained on predicting the survival status. Modest accuracy levels were obtained in predicting the survival status (AUC = 0.69). More importantly, however, operations that had the highest chances of success were shown to be identifiable with high accuracy, e.g., 92% or 97% when identifying 74 or 31 recipients, respectively. Identifying the patients with the highest chances of survival has direct application in the prioritization of resources and in donor matching. For patients where high-confidence prediction is not achieved, assigning a probability to their survival odds has potential applications in probabilistic decision support systems and in combination with other sources of information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".