Machine Learning for the Prediction of Survival Post-Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prediction of outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains a major challenge. Machine learning (ML) is a computational procedure that may facilitate the generation of HCT prediction models. We sought to investigate the prognostic potential of multiple ML algorithms when applied to a large single-center allogeneic HCT database. METHODS: Our registry included 2,697 patients that underwent allogeneic HCT from January 1976 to December 2017. 45 pretransplant baseline variables were included in the predictive assessment of each ML algorithm on overall survival (OS) as determined by area under the curve (AUC). Pretransplant variables used in the EBMT ML study (Shouval et al., 2015) were used as a benchmark for comparison. RESULTS: On the entire dataset, the random forest (RF) algorithm performed best (AUC 0.71 ± 0.04) compared to the second-best model, logistic regression (LR) (AUC = 0.69 ± 0.04) (p < 0.001). Both algorithms demonstrated improved AUC scores using all 45 variables compared to the limited variables examined by the EBMT study. Survival at 100 days post-HCT using RF on the full dataset discriminated patients into different prognostic groups with different 2-year OS (p < 0.0001). We then examined the ML methods that allow for significant individual variable identification, including LR and RF, and identified matched related donors (HR = 0.49, p < 0.0001), increasing TBI dose (HR = 1.60, p = 0.006), increasing recipient age (HR = 1.92, p < 0.0001), higher baseline Hb (HR = 0.59, p = 0.0002), and increased baseline FEV1 (HR = 0.73, p = 0.02), among others. CONCLUSION: The application of multiple ML techniques on single-center allogeneic HCT databases warrants further investigation and may provide a useful tool to identify variables with prognostic potential.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".