Performance analysis of a machine learning flagging system used to identify a group of individuals at a high risk for colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) have a tendency to intestinal bleeding which may result in mild to severe iron deficiency anemia, but for many colon cancer patients hematological abnormalities are subtle. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is used as a pre-screening test whereby those with a positive FOBT are referred to colonscopy. We sought to determine if information contained in the complete blood count (CBC) report coud be processed automatically and used to predict the presence of occult colorectal cancer (CRC) in the setting of a large health services plan. Using the health records of the Maccabi Health Services (MHS) we reviewed CBC reports for 112,584 study subjects of whom 133 were diagnosed with CRC in 2008 and analysed these with the MeScore tool. The odds ratio for being diagnosed with CRC in 2008 was calculated with regards to the MeScore, using cutoff levels of 97% and 99% percentiles. For individuals in the highest one percentile, the odds ratio for CRC was 21.8 (95% CI 13.8 to 34.2). For the majority of the individuals with cancer, CRC was not suspected at the time of the blood draw. Frequent use of anticoagulants, the presence of other gastrointestinal pathologies and non-GI malignancies were assocaitged with false positive MeScores. The MeScore can help identify individuals in the population who would benefit most from CRC screening, including those with no clinical signs or symptoms of CRC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".