A Machine Learning Method for Identifying Lung Cancer Based on Routine Blood Indices: Qualitative Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsies based on blood samples have been widely accepted as a diagnostic and monitoring tool for cancers, but extremely high sensitivity is frequently needed due to the very low levels of the specially selected DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers that are released into blood. However, routine blood indices tests are frequently ordered by physicians, as they are easy to perform and are cost effective. In addition, machine learning is broadly accepted for its ability to decipher complicated connections between multiple sets of test data and diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to discover the potential association between lung cancer and routine blood indices and thereby help clinicians and patients to identify lung cancer based on these routine tests. METHODS: The machine learning method known as Random Forest was adopted to build an identification model between routine blood indices and lung cancer that would determine if they were potentially linked. Ten-fold cross-validation and further tests were utilized to evaluate the reliability of the identification model. RESULTS: In total, 277 patients with 49 types of routine blood indices were included in this study, including 183 patients with lung cancer and 94 patients without lung cancer. Throughout the course of the study, there was correlation found between the combination of 19 types of routine blood indices and lung cancer. Lung cancer patients could be identified from other patients, especially those with tuberculosis (which usually has similar clinical symptoms to lung cancer), with a sensitivity, specificity and total accuracy of 96.3%, 94.97% and 95.7% for the cross-validation results, respectively. This identification method is called the routine blood indices model for lung cancer, and it promises to be of help as a tool for both clinicians and patients for the identification of lung cancer based on routine blood indices. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer can be identified based on the combination of 19 types of routine blood indices, which implies that artificial intelligence can find the connections between a disease and the fundamental indices of blood, which could reduce the necessity of costly, elaborate blood test techniques for this purpose. It may also be possible that the combination of multiple indices obtained from routine blood tests may be connected to other diseases as well.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".