Predicting survival after radical prostatectomy: Variation of machine learning performance by race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robust prediction of survival can facilitate clinical decision-making and patient counselling. Non-Caucasian males are underrepresented in most prostate cancer databases. We evaluated the variation in performance of a machine learning (ML) algorithm trained to predict survival after radical prostatectomy in race subgroups. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2004 and 2016. We grouped patients by race into Caucasian, African-American, or non-Caucasian, non-African-American (NCNAA) subgroups. We trained an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classifier to predict 5-year survival in different training samples: naturally race-imbalanced, race-specific, and synthetically race-balanced. We evaluated performance in the test sets. RESULTS: A total of 68,630 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 57,635 (84%) were Caucasian, 8173 (12%) were African-American, and 2822 (4%) were NCNAA. For the classifier trained in the naturally race-imbalanced sample, the F1 scores were 0.514 (95% confidence interval: 0.513-0.511), 0.511 (0.511-0.512), 0.545 (0.541-0.548), and 0.378 (0.378-0.389) in the race-imbalanced, Caucasian, African-American, and NCNAA test samples, respectively. For all race subgroups, the F1 scores of classifiers trained in the race-specific or synthetically race-balanced samples demonstrated similar performance compared to training in the naturally race-imbalanced sample. CONCLUSIONS: A ML algorithm trained using NCDB data to predict survival after radical prostatectomy demonstrates variation in performance by race, regardless of whether the algorithm is trained in a naturally race-imbalanced, race-specific, or synthetically race-balanced sample. These results emphasize the importance of thoroughly evaluating ML algorithms in race subgroups before clinical deployment to avoid potential disparities in care.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".