A machine learning model of response to hypomethylating agents in myelodysplastic syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypomethylating agents (HMA) prolong survival and improve cytopenias in individuals with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Only 30-40% of patients, however, respond to HMAs, and responses may not occur for more than 6 months after HMA initiation. We developed a model to more rapidly assess HMA response by analyzing early changes in patients' blood counts. Three institutions' data were used to develop a model that assessed patients' response to therapy 90 days after the initiation using serial blood counts. The model was developed with a training cohort of 424 patients from 2 institutions and validated on an independent cohort of 90 patients. The final model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.79 in the train/test group and 0.84 in the validation group. The model provides cohort-wide and individual-level explanations for model predictions, and model certainty can be interrogated to gauge the reliability of a given prediction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".