Machine Learning Algorithms as a Computer-Assisted Decision Tool for Oral Cancer Prognosis and Management Decisions: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite multiple prognostic indicators described for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), its management still continues to be a matter of debate. Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables computers to learn from historical data, gather insights, and make predictions about new data using the model learned. Therefore, it can be a potential tool in the field of head and neck cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 81 manuscripts were revised, and 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 38 were excluded for the following reasons: use of a classical statistical method (N = 16), nonspecific for OCSCC (N = 15), and not being related to OCSCC survival (N = 7). In total, 8 studies were included in the final analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ML has the potential to significantly advance research in the field of OCSCC. Advantages are related to the use and training of ML models because of their capability to continue training continuously when more data become available. Future ML research will allow us to improve and democratize the application of algorithms to improve the prediction of cancer prognosis and its management worldwide.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".