A Novel, Simple, and Low-Cost Approach for Machine Learning Screening of Kidney Cancer: An Eight-Indicator Blood Test Panel with Predictive Value for Early Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) accounts for more than 90% of all renal cancers. The five-year survival rate of early-stage (TNM 1) ccRCC reaches 96%, while the advanced-stage (TNM 4) is only 23%. Therefore, early screening of patients with renal cancer is essential for the treatment of renal cancer and the long-term survival of patients. In this study, blood samples of patients were collected and a pre-defined set of blood indicators were measured. A random forest (RF) model was established to predict based on each indicator in the blood, and was trained with all relevant indicators for comprehensive predictions. In our study, we found that there was a high statistical significance (p < 0.001) for all indicators of healthy individuals and early cancer patients, except for uric acid (UA). At the same time, ccRCC also presented great differences in most blood indicators between males and females. In addition, patients with ccRCC had a higher probability of developing a low ratio of albumin (ALB) to globulin (GLB) (AGR < 1.2). Eight key indicators were used to classify and predict renal cell carcinoma. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of the eight-indicator model was as high as 0.932, the sensitivity was 88.2%, and the specificity was 86.3%, which are acceptable in many applications, thus realising early screening for renal cancer by blood indicators in a simple blood-draw physical examination. Furthermore, the composite indicator prediction method described in our study can be applied to other clinical conditions or diseases, where multiple blood indicators may be key to enhancing the diagnostic potential of screening strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".