Abstract 1944: Prognostic biomarkers for gallbladder cancer: A machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is one of the deadliest cancers, with a 5-year-survival-rate of less than 5 percent for late-stage disease. The response rate to chemotherapy among GBC patients is generally poor. Recent research has attempted to identify diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers, however, currently, no biomarkers can accurately diagnose GBC and predict patients’ prognosis. Integrative analysis of molecular and clinical characterization has not been fully established, and minimal improvement has been made to the survival of these patients, in part due to the heterogeneity of GBC. Machine learning techniques have been proven to empower analysis of big data in oncology, allowing for improvement in the generation of biomarkers to predict patient outcomes. Using machine learning, we can utilize high-throughput RNA sequencing with clinicopathologic data to develop a predictive tool for GBC prognosis. Current predictive models for GBC outcomes often utilize clinical data only, with the highest C-statistic reported being 0.71. C-statistic values over 0.7 generally indicate good models, however 0.8 is the threshold for strong predictive models. We aim to build a superior algorithm to predict overall survival in GBC patients with advanced disease, using machine learning approaches to prioritize biomarkers for GBC prognosis. We have identified over 80 fresh frozen GBC tissue samples from Mayo Clinic Rochester, Dongsan Medical Center in Daegu, Korea, University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa, Lithuanian University of Health Science in Vilnius, Lithuania, and University of Calgary in Calgary, Canada, from patients enrolled between 2012 and 2021. We will perform next-generation RNA sequencing on these tissue samples. The patients’ clinical, pathologic and survival data will be abstracted from the medical record uniformly across sites. Feature engineering and dimensionality reduction will be performed. Then random forests, support vector machines, and gradient boosting machines will be applied to train the data. Variable importance will prioritize multi-omic markers. Standard 5-fold cross validation will be used to assess performance of each ML algorithm. If overall survival can be better predicted with the addition patients’ transcriptional sequencing data compared to using clinical profiles alone, we can gain a greater understanding of key biomarkers driving the tumor phenotype. Citation Format: Linsey Jackson, Loretta Allotey, Valles Kenneth, Gavin Oliver, Asha Nair, Daniel O'Brien, Rondell Graham, Mitesh Borad, Arjun Athreya, Lewis Roberts. Prognostic biomarkers for gallbladder cancer: A machine learning approach [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 1944.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".