Machine learning based survival prediction in Glioma using large-scale registry data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gliomas are the most common central nervous system tumors exhibiting poor clinical outcomes. The ability to estimate prognosis is crucial for both patients and providers in order to select the most appropriate treatment. Machine learning (ML) allows for sophisticated approaches to survival prediction using real world clinical parameters needed to achieve superior predictive accuracy. We employed Cox Proportional hazards (CPH) model, Support Vector Machine (SVM) model, Random Forest (RF) model in a large glioma dataset (3462 patients, diagnosed 2000-2018) to explore the most optimal approach to survival prediction. Features employed were age, sex, surgical resection status, tumor histology and tumor site, administration of radiation therapy (RT) and chemotherapy status. Concordance index (c-index) was employed to assess the accuracy of survival time prediction. All three models performed well with prediction accuracy (CI 0.767, 0.771, 0.57 for CPH, SVM, RF models respectively) with the best performance achieved when incorporating RT and chemotherapy administration status which emerged as key predictive features. Within the subset of glioblastoma patients, similar prediction accuracy was achieved. These findings should prompt stricter clinician oversight over registry data accuracy through quality assurance as we move towards meaningful predictive ability using ML approaches in glioma.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".