Predicting Patterns of Distant Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients following Local Regional Therapy Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 30% of breast cancer (BC) patients will develop distant metastases (DM), for which there is no cure. Here, statistical and machine learning (ML) models were developed to estimate the risk of site-specific DM following local-regional therapy. This retrospective study cohort included 175 patients diagnosed with invasive BC who later developed DM. Clinicopathological information was collected for analysis. Outcome variables were the first site of metastasis (brain, bone or visceral) and the time interval (months) to developing DM. Multivariate statistical analysis and ML-based multivariable gradient boosting machines identified factors associated with these outcomes. Machine learning models predicted the site of DM, demonstrating an area under the curve of 0.74, 0.75, and 0.73 for brain, bone and visceral sites, respectively. Overall, most patients (57%) developed bone metastases, with increased odds associated with estrogen receptor (ER) positivity. Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positivity and non-anthracycline chemotherapy regimens were associated with a decreased risk of bone DM, while brain metastasis was associated with ER-negativity. Furthermore, non-anthracycline chemotherapy alone was a significant predictor of visceral metastasis. Here, clinicopathologic and treatment variables used in ML prediction models predict the first site of metastasis in BC. Further validation may guide focused patient-specific surveillance practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".