Multi-institutional Prognostic Modeling in Head and Neck Cancer: Evaluating Impact and Generalizability of Deep Learning and Radiomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are becoming critical in developing and deploying personalized medicine and targeted clinical trials. Recent advances in ML have enabled the integration of wider ranges of data including both medical records and imaging (radiomics). However, the development of prognostic models is complex as no modeling strategy is universally superior to others and validation of developed models requires large and diverse datasets to demonstrate that prognostic models developed (regardless of method) from one dataset are applicable to other datasets both internally and externally. Using a retrospective dataset of 2,552 patients from a single institution and a strict evaluation framework that included external validation on three external patient cohorts (873 patients), we crowdsourced the development of ML models to predict overall survival in head and neck cancer (HNC) using electronic medical records (EMR) and pretreatment radiological images. To assess the relative contributions of radiomics in predicting HNC prognosis, we compared 12 different models using imaging and/or EMR data. The model with the highest accuracy used multitask learning on clinical data and tumor volume, achieving high prognostic accuracy for 2-year and lifetime survival prediction, outperforming models relying on clinical data only, engineered radiomics, or complex deep neural network architecture. However, when we attempted to extend the best performing models from this large training dataset to other institutions, we observed significant reductions in the performance of the model in those datasets, highlighting the importance of detailed population-based reporting for AI/ML model utility and stronger validation frameworks. We have developed highly prognostic models for overall survival in HNC using EMRs and pretreatment radiological images based on a large, retrospective dataset of 2,552 patients from our institution.Diverse ML approaches were used by independent investigators. The model with the highest accuracy used multitask learning on clinical data and tumor volume.External validation of the top three performing models on three datasets (873 patients) with significant differences in the distributions of clinical and demographic variables demonstrated significant decreases in model performance. Significance: ML combined with simple prognostic factors outperformed multiple advanced CT radiomics and deep learning methods. ML models provided diverse solutions for prognosis of patients with HNC but their prognostic value is affected by differences in patient populations and require extensive validation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".