Applications of Machine Learning in Cancer Prediction and Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence that employs a variety of statistical, probabilistic and optimization techniques that allows computers to “learn” from past examples and to detect hard-to-discern patterns from large, noisy or complex data sets. This capability is particularly well-suited to medical applications, especially those that depend on complex proteomic and genomic measurements. As a result, machine learning is frequently used in cancer diagnosis and detection. More recently machine learning has been applied to cancer prognosis and prediction. This latter approach is particularly interesting as it is part of a growing trend towards personalized, predictive medicine. In assembling this review we conducted a broad survey of the different types of machine learning methods being used, the types of data being integrated and the performance of these methods in cancer prediction and prognosis. A number of trends are noted, including a growing dependence on protein biomarkers and microarray data, a strong bias towards applications in prostate and breast cancer, and a heavy reliance on “older” technologies such artificial neural networks (ANNs) instead of more recently developed or more easily interpretable machine learning methods. A number of published studies also appear to lack an appropriate level of validation or testing. Among the better designed and validated studies it is clear that machine learning methods can be used to substantially (15–25%) improve the accuracy of predicting cancer susceptibility, recurrence and mortality. At a more fundamental level, it is also evident that machine learning is also helping to improve our basic understanding of cancer development and progression.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".