Using Bayesian Neural Networks to Select Features and Compute Credible Intervals for Personalized Survival Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Individual Survival Distribution (ISD) models a patient's personalized survival probability at all future time points. Previously, ISD models have been shown to produce accurate and personalized survival estimates (for example, time to relapse or to death) in several clinical applications. However, off-the-shelf neural-network-based ISD models are usually opaque models due to their limited support for meaningful feature selection and uncertainty estimation, which hinders their wide clinical adoption. Here, we introduce a Bayesian-neural-network-based ISD (BNN-ISD) model that produces accurate survival estimates but also quantifies the uncertainty in model's parameter estimation, which can be used to (1) rank the importance of the input features to support feature selection and (2) compute credible intervals around ISDs for clinicians to assess the model's confidence in its prediction. Our BNN-ISD model utilized sparsity-inducing priors to learn a sparse set of weights to enable feature selection. We provide empirical evidence, on 2 synthetic and 3 real-world clinical datasets, that BNN-ISD system can effectively select meaningful features and compute trustworthy credible intervals of the survival distribution for each patient. We observed that our approach accurately recovers feature importance in the synthetic datasets and selects meaningful features for the real-world clinical data as well, while also achieving state-of-the-art survival prediction performance. We also show that these credible regions can aid in clinical decision-making by providing a gauge of the uncertainty of the estimated ISD curves.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".