Computational intelligence analysis of high-risk neuroblastoma patient health records reveals time to maximum response as one of the most relevant factors for outcome prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Seek new candidate prognostic markers for neuroblastoma outcome, relapse or progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicentre and retrospective study, Random Forests coupled with recursive feature elimination techniques were applied to electronic records (55 clinical features) of 3034 neuroblastoma patients. To assess model performance and feature importance, dataset was split into a training set (80%) and a test set (20%). RESULTS: In the test set, the mean Matthews correlation coefficient for the Random Forests models was greater than 0.46. Feature importance analysis revealed that, together with maximum response to first-line treatment (D_MAX_RESP), time to maximum response to first-line treatment (TIME_MAX_RESP.days) is a relevant predictor of both patients' outcome and relapse\progression. We showed the prognostic value of the max response to first-line treatment in clinically relevant subsets of high-, intermediate-, and low-risk patients for both overall and relapse-free survival (Log-rank p-value<0.0001). In high-risk patients older than 18 months and stage 4 tumour achieving a complete response or very good partial response, patients who exhibited a D_MAX_RESP greater than 9 months showed a better prognosis with respect to patients achieving D_MAX_RESP earlier than 9 months (overall survival): hazard ratio 3.3 95% confidence interval 1.8-5.9, Log-rank p-value p < 0.0001; relapse-free survival: 3.2 95%CI 1.8-5.6, Log-rank p-value p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings evidence the emerging role of the TIME_MAX_RESP.days in addition to the D_MAX_RESP as relevant predictors of outcome and relapse\progression in neuroblastoma with potential clinical impact on the management and treatment of patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".