Bayesian risk prediction model for colorectal cancer mortality through integration of clinicopathologic and genomic data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging of colorectal cancer is imperfect in predicting survival due to tumor pathobiological heterogeneity and imprecise assessment of tumor spread. We leveraged Bayesian additive regression trees (BART), a statistical learning technique, to comprehensively analyze patient-specific tumor characteristics for the improvement of prognostic prediction. Of 75 clinicopathologic, immune, microbial, and genomic variables in 815 stage II-III patients within two U.S.-wide prospective cohort studies, the BART risk model identified seven stable survival predictors. Risk stratifications (low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk) based on model-predicted survival were statistically significant (hazard ratios 0.19-0.45, vs. higher risk; P < 0.0001) and could be externally validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data (P = 0.0004). BART demonstrated model flexibility, interpretability, and comparable or superior performance to other machine-learning models. Integrated bioinformatic analyses using BART with tumor-specific factors can robustly stratify colorectal cancer patients into prognostic groups and be readily applied to clinical oncology practice.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it