Prediction Model for Postoperative Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors Along the Survivorship Trajectory From Pretreatment to 5 Years: Machine Learning–Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cause of cancer death in women. Although survival rates have improved, unmet psychosocial needs remain challenging because the quality of life (QoL) and QoL-related factors change over time. In addition, traditional statistical models have limitations in identifying factors associated with QoL over time, particularly concerning the physical, psychological, economic, spiritual, and social dimensions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify patient-centered factors associated with QoL among patients with breast cancer using a machine learning (ML) algorithm to analyze data collected along different survivorship trajectories. METHODS: The study used 2 data sets. The first data set was the cross-sectional survey data from the Breast Cancer Information Grand Round for Survivorship (BIG-S) study, which recruited consecutive breast cancer survivors who visited the outpatient breast cancer clinic at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Korea, between 2018 and 2019. The second data set was the longitudinal cohort data from the Beauty Education for Distressed Breast Cancer (BEST) cohort study, which was conducted at 2 university-based cancer hospitals in Seoul, Korea, between 2011 and 2016. QoL was measured using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 questionnaire. Feature importance was interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The final model was selected based on the highest mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The analyses were performed using the Python 3.7 programming environment (Python Software Foundation). RESULTS: The study included 6265 breast cancer survivors in the training data set and 432 patients in the validation set. The mean age was 50.6 (SD 8.66) years and 46.8% (n=2004) had stage 1 cancer. In the training data set, 48.3% (n=3026) of survivors had poor QoL. The study developed ML models for QoL prediction based on 6 algorithms. Performance was good for all survival trajectories: overall (AUC 0.823), baseline (AUC 0.835), within 1 year (AUC 0.860), between 2 and 3 years (AUC 0.808), between 3 and 4 years (AUC 0.820), and between 4 and 5 years (AUC 0.826). Emotional and physical functions were the most important features before surgery and within 1 year after surgery, respectively. Fatigue was the most important feature between 1 and 4 years. Despite the survival period, hopefulness was the most influential feature on QoL. External validation of the models showed good performance with AUCs between 0.770 and 0.862. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified important factors associated with QoL among breast cancer survivors across different survival trajectories. Understanding the changing trends of these factors could help to intervene more precisely and timely, and potentially prevent or alleviate QoL-related issues for patients. The good performance of our ML models in both training and external validation sets suggests the potential use of this approach in identifying patient-centered factors and improving survivorship care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".