Prediction of Clinical Outcomes with Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is applied to predict the outcome of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with five prognostic factors, including genetic analysis. We investigated whether multiparameter flow cytometry (MPFC) data of CLL samples could predict the outcome by methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Further, XAI should explain the results based on distinctive cell populations in MPFC dot plots. Methods: We analyzed MPFC data from the peripheral blood of 157 patients with CLL. The ALPODS XAI algorithm was used to identify cell populations that were predictive of inferior outcomes (death, failure of first-line treatment). The diagnostic ability of each XAI population was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: ALPODS defined 17 populations with higher ability than the CLL-IPI to classify clinical outcomes (ROC: area under curve (AUC) 0.95 vs. 0.78). The best single classifier was an XAI population consisting of CD4+ T cells (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.70–0.86; p < 0.0001). Patients with low CD4+ T cells had an inferior outcome. The addition of the CD4+ T-cell population enhanced the predictive ability of the CLL-IPI (AUC 0.83; 95% CI 0.77–0.90; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The ALPODS XAI algorithm detected highly predictive cell populations in CLL that may be able to refine conventional prognostic scores such as IPI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".