Important Features Identification for Prostate Cancer Patients Stratification Using Isolation Forest and Interactive Clustering Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate-specific Antigen (PSA) levels are commonly used to screen prostate cancer patients. However, because of the wide range of PSA levels in men, the classification results pertain to extensive false positives and false negatives that may impact the patient treatment. This paper presents a method to cluster prostate cancer patient clinical and demographics data into homogenous groups to support prostate cancer patients' classification with high accuracy. The proposed method is based on the isolation forest and interactive (two-step) clustering algorithm. We further analyze each group for commonalities and differences. The dataset used in this paper is collected from participants enrolled in the Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative (APCaRI) study, which includes (after pre-processing) 2,878 patients with 20 clinical and demographics variables. The APCaRI study enrolled the population of men undergoing prostate cancer diagnosis in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada. These patients are referred for a diagnostic biopsy based on conventional clinical guidelines (e.g., elevated PSA or abnormal digital rectal examination). The data contains three different PSA levels measured at three follow-up times and the initial screening PSA level. The analysis results show that the PSA levels are a significant factor within each group, and there is a significant overlap between PSA levels between groups, and it may not be the best factor to classify prostate cancer patients. The data's majority group has PSA levels (10.83%, 10.44%, and 10.14%) smaller than the remaining groups. This paper concludes that it is maybe better to design an independent classifier per group to identify prostate cancer patients from clinical and demographics data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".