Comparison of Bayesian network and support vector machine models for two-year survival prediction in lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Classic statistical and machine learning models such as support vector machines (SVMs) can be used to predict cancer outcome, but often only perform well if all the input variables are known, which is unlikely in the medical domain. Bayesian network (BN) models have a natural ability to reason under uncertainty and might handle missing data better. In this study, the authors hypothesize that a BN model can predict two-year survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as accurately as SVM, but will predict survival more accurately when data are missing. METHODS: A BN and SVM model were trained on 322 inoperable NSCLC patients treated with radiotherapy from Maastricht and validated in three independent data sets of 35, 47, and 33 patients from Ghent, Leuven, and Toronto. Missing variables occurred in the data set with only 37, 28, and 24 patients having a complete data set. RESULTS: The BN model structure and parameter learning identified gross tumor volume size, performance status, and number of positive lymph nodes on a PET as prognostic factors for two-year survival. When validated in the full validation set of Ghent, Leuven, and Toronto, the BN model had an AUC of 0.77, 0.72, and 0.70, respectively. A SVM model based on the same variables had an overall worse performance (AUC 0.71, 0.68, and 0.69) especially in the Ghent set, which had the highest percentage of missing the important GTV size data. When only patients with complete data sets were considered, the BN and SVM model performed more alike. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the hypothesis is supported that BN models are better at handling missing data than SVM models and are therefore more suitable for the medical domain. Future works have to focus on improving the BN performance by including more patients, more variables, and more diversity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".