Prediction of early breast cancer patient survival using ensembles of hypoxia signatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are a key component of precision medicine. However, full clinical integration of biomarkers has been met with challenges, partly attributed to analytical difficulties. It has been shown that biomarker reproducibility is susceptible to data preprocessing approaches. Here, we systematically evaluated machine-learning ensembles of preprocessing methods as a general strategy to improve biomarker performance for prediction of survival from early breast cancer. RESULTS: We risk stratified breast cancer patients into either low-risk or high-risk groups based on four published hypoxia signatures (Buffa, Winter, Hu, and Sorensen), using 24 different preprocessing approaches for microarray normalization. The 24 binary risk profiles determined for each hypoxia signature were combined using a random forest to evaluate the efficacy of a preprocessing ensemble classifier. We demonstrate that the best way of merging preprocessing methods varies from signature to signature, and that there is likely no 'best' preprocessing pipeline that is universal across datasets, highlighting the need to evaluate ensembles of preprocessing algorithms. Further, we developed novel signatures for each preprocessing method and the risk classifications from each were incorporated in a meta-random forest model. Interestingly, the classification of these biomarkers and its ensemble show striking consistency, demonstrating that similar intrinsic biological information are being faithfully represented. As such, these classification patterns further confirm that there is a subset of patients whose prognosis is consistently challenging to predict. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of different prognostic signatures varies with pre-processing method. A simple classifier by unanimous voting of classifications is a reliable way of improving on single preprocessing methods. Future signatures will likely require integration of intrinsic and extrinsic clinico-pathological variables to better predict disease-related outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".