Comparing the predictive value of neural network models to logistic regression models on the risk of death for small-cell lung cancer patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality in the developed world, and prognostic assessment of cancer patients is indispensable in medical care. Medical researchers are accustomed to using regression models to predict patient outcomes. Neural networks have been proposed as an alternative with great potential. Nonetheless, empirical evidence remains lacking to support the application of this technique as the appropriate method to investigate cancer prognosis. Utilizing data on patients from two National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials, we compared predictive accuracy of neural network models and logistic regression models on risk of death of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer patients. Our results suggest that neural network and logistic regression models have similar predictive accuracy. The distributions of individual predicted probabilities are very similar. On occasion, however, the prediction pairs are quite different, suggesting that they do not always give the same interpretations of the same variables.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it