MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205944574 · doi:10.2196/33440

The Application and Comparison of Machine Learning Models for the Prediction of Breast Cancer Prognosis: Retrospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4205944574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jialong Xiao, Miao Mo, Zezhou Wang, Changming Zhou, Jie Shen, Yuan Jing, Yulian He, Ying Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrier scoreMedicineProportional hazards modelMachine learningRetrospective cohort studyArtificial intelligenceDiscriminative modelRandom forestBreast cancerCancerHazard ratioStatisticsComputer scienceInternal medicineConfidence intervalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the recent years, machine learning methods have been increasingly explored in cancer prognosis because of the appearance of improved machine learning algorithms. These algorithms can use censored data for modeling, such as support vector machines for survival analysis and random survival forest (RSF). However, it is still debated whether traditional (Cox proportional hazard regression) or machine learning-based prognostic models have better predictive performance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performance of breast cancer prognostic prediction models based on machine learning and Cox regression. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently hospitalized in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2016. After all exclusions, a total of 22,176 cases with 21 features were eligible for model development. The data set was randomly split into a training set (15,523 cases, 70%) and a test set (6653 cases, 30%) for developing 4 models and predicting the overall survival of patients diagnosed with breast cancer. The discriminative ability of models was evaluated by the concordance index (C-index), the time-dependent area under the curve, and D-index; the calibration ability of models was evaluated by the Brier score. RESULTS: The RSF model revealed the best discriminative performance among the 4 models with 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year time-dependent area under the curve of 0.857, 0.838, and 0.781, a D-index of 7.643 (95% CI 6.542, 8.930) and a C-index of 0.827 (95% CI 0.809, 0.845). The statistical difference of the C-index was tested, and the RSF model significantly outperformed the Cox-EN (elastic net) model (C-index 0.816, 95% CI 0.796, 0.836; P=.01), the Cox model (C-index 0.814, 95% CI 0.794, 0.835; P=.003), and the support vector machine model (C-index 0.812, 95% CI 0.793, 0.832; P<.001). The 4 models' 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year Brier scores were very close, ranging from 0.027 to 0.094 and less than 0.1, which meant all models had good calibration. In the context of feature importance, elastic net and RSF both indicated that TNM staging, neoadjuvant therapy, number of lymph node metastases, age, and tumor diameter were the top 5 important features for predicting the prognosis of breast cancer. A final online tool was developed to predict the overall survival of patients with breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The RSF model slightly outperformed the other models on discriminative ability, revealing the potential of the RSF method as an effective approach to building prognostic prediction models in the context of survival analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207