Machine Learning Approach to Predict the Probability of Recurrence of Renal Cell Carcinoma After Surgery: Prediction Model Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has a high recurrence rate of 20% to 30% after nephrectomy for clinically localized disease, and more than 40% of patients eventually die of the disease, making regular monitoring and constant management of utmost importance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop an algorithm that predicts the probability of recurrence of RCC within 5 and 10 years of surgery. METHODS: Data from 6849 Korean patients with RCC were collected from eight tertiary care hospitals listed in the KOrean Renal Cell Carcinoma (KORCC) web-based database. To predict RCC recurrence, analytical data from 2814 patients were extracted from the database. Eight machine learning algorithms were used to predict the probability of RCC recurrence, and the results were compared. RESULTS: Within 5 years of surgery, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was obtained from the naïve Bayes (NB) model, with a value of 0.836. Within 10 years of surgery, the highest AUROC was obtained from the NB model, with a value of 0.784. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm was developed that predicts the probability of RCC recurrence within 5 and 10 years using the KORCC database, a large-scale RCC cohort in Korea. It is expected that the developed algorithm will help clinicians manage prognosis and establish customized treatment strategies for patients with RCC after surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".