Decoding pan-cancer treatment outcomes using multimodal real-world data and explainable artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite advances in precision oncology, clinical decision-making still relies on limited parameters and expert knowledge. To address this limitation, we combined multimodal real- world data and explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) to introduce novel AI-derived (AID) markers for clinical decision support. We used deep learning to model the outcome of 15,726 patients across 38 solid cancer entities based on 350 markers, including clinical records, image-derived body compositions, and mutational tumor profiles. xAI determined the prognostic contribution of each clinical marker at the patient level and identified 114 key markers that accounted for 90% of the neural network’s decision process. Moreover, xAI enabled us to uncover 1,373 prognostic interactions between markers. Our approach was validated in an independent cohort of 3,288 lung cancer patients from a US nationwide electronic health record-derived database. These results show the potential of xAI to transform the assessment of clinical parameters and enable personalized, data-driven cancer 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".