A comparison of machine learning methods to predict survival times for cancer patients: Incorporating time-varying covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Cox proportional hazard model is commonly used in evaluating risk factors in cancer survival data. The model assumes an additive, linear relationship between the risk factors and the log hazard. However, this assumption may be too simplistic. Further, failure to take time-varying covariates into account, if present, may lower prediction accuracy. In this retrospective, population-based, prognostic study of data from patients diagnosed with cancer from 2008 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada, we applied machine learning-based time-to-event prediction methods and compared their predictive performance in two sets of analyses: 1) yearly-cohort-based time-invariant and 2) fully time-varying covariates analysis. Machine learning-based methods — gradient boosting model (gbm), random survival forest (rsf), elastic net (enet), lasso, ridge, and deepsurv neural network (nnet) — were compared to the traditional Cox proportional hazard (coxph) model and the prior study which used the yearly-cohort-based time-invariant analysis. Using Harrell's C index as our primary measure, we found that using both machine-learning techniques and incorporating time-dependent covariates can improve predictive performance. Gradient boosting machine showed the best performance on test data in both time-invariant and time-varying covariates 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 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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".