MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120701494 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2009.92

Survival Prediction in Lung Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: Bayesian Networks vs. Support Vector Machines in Handling Missing Data

2009· article· en· W2120701494 on OpenAlexaff
André Dekker, Cary Oberije, Dirk De Ruysscher, Philippe Lambin, Kartik Komati, Glenn Fung, Shipeng Yu, Andrew Hope, Wilfried De Neve, Yolande Lievens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataSupport vector machineComputer scienceBayesian networkArtificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Bayesian probabilityLung cancerMachine learningMedicineOncologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Missing data is a given in the medical domain, so machine learning models should have satisfactory performance even when missing data occurs. Our previous work has focused on support vector machines (SVM), but we hypothesize that Bayesian networks (BN) can handle missing data better. To test the hypothesis, we trained a BN and SVM model for 2 year survival on 322 lung cancer patients and compared their performance in three separate external datasets (35, 47, 33 patients), each with their own characteristics in terms of missing data. The models used tumor size, clinical T and N stage, involved lymph nodes and WHO performance as prognostic features. We found that the BN model performed better than SVM (AUC 0.77, 0.72. 0.70 vs. 0.71, 0.68, 0.69), especially if tumor size was missing. We conclude that BN models are better suited for the medical domain, as they can handle missing data better.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207