Machine learning to predict individual patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up for women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and breast reconstruction (INSPiRED-001)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction are facing multiple treatment choices where post-surgical satisfaction with breasts is a key outcome. We developed and validated machine learning algorithms to predict patient-reported satisfaction with breasts at 2-year follow-up to better inform the decision-making process for women with breast cancer. METHODS: We trained, tested, and validated three machine learning algorithms (logistic regression (LR) with elastic net penalty, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) tree, and neural network) to predict clinically important differences in satisfaction with breasts at 2-year follow-up using the validated BREAST-Q. We used data from 1553 women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction who were followed-up for two years at eleven study sites in North America from 2011 to 2016. 10-fold cross-validation was used to train and test the algorithms on data from 10 of the 11 sites which were further validated using the additional site's data. Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (AUC) was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Of 1553 women, 702 (45.2%) experienced an improved satisfaction with breasts and 422 (27.2%) a decreased satisfaction. In the validation set (n = 221), the algorithms showed equally high performance to predict improved or decreased satisfaction with breasts (all P > 0.05): For improved satisfaction AUCs were 0.86-0.87 and for decreased satisfaction AUCs were 0.84-0.85. CONCLUSION: Long-term, individual patient-reported outcomes for women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction can be accurately predicted using machine learning algorithms. Our algorithms may be used to better inform clinical treatment decisions for these patients by providing accurate estimates of expected quality of life.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".