Using a machine learning algorithm to predict outcome of primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a machine learning (ML) algorithm to predict outcome of primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with AOC undergoing PCS between January 2017 and February 2021. Using radiologic criteria, patient factors (age, CA-125, performance status, BRCA) and surgical complexity scores, we trained a random forest model to predict the dichotomous outcome of optimal cytoreduction (<1 cm) and no gross residual (RD = 0 mm) using JMP-Pro 15 (SAS). This model is available at https://ipm-ml.ccm.sickkids.ca. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one patients underwent PCS and randomly assigned to train (n = 92), validate (n = 30), or test (n = 29) the model. The median age was 58 (27-83). Patients with suboptimal cytoreduction were more likely to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 3-4 (11% vs. 0.75%, p = 0.004), lower albumin (38 vs. 41, p = 0.02), and higher CA125 (1126 vs. 388, p = 0.012) than patients with optimal cytoreduction (n = 133). There were no significant differences in age, histology, stage, or BRCA status between groups. The bootstrap random forest model had AUCs of 99.8% (training), 89.6%(validation), and 89.0% (test). The top five contributors were CA125, albumin, diaphragmatic disease, age, and ascites. For RD = 0 mm, the AUCs were 94.4%, 52%, and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our ML algorithm demonstrated high accuracy in predicting optimal cytoreduction in patients with AOC selected for PCS and may assist decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".