Effective Survival Prediction and Evaluation for Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: As cancer is the leading global cause of death, an ongoing challenge is predicting an individual’s cancer progression accurately, to facilitate personalized treatment planning. In deploying individual survival prediction models, a pivotal question emerges: Are we striving to compare survival durations between patients (e.g., ‘Who survives longer between patients A and B?’) or are we endeavoring to estimate a specific patient’s survival time (e.g., ‘How long will patient A survive?’), among other scenarios. This paper addresses this fundamental inquiry and conducts a comprehensive evaluation of such predictive models. Materials and methods: We consider 9 common solid tumors (brain, breast, kidney, liver, lung, stomach, prostate, thyroid, and urinary bladder) using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. We employ both conventional and advanced machine learning models that predict individualized survival distributions. We consider several different possible goals of a survival prediction model and connect each goal to a specific evaluation metric. We propose modified versions of the mean absolute error tailored to address a query about a patient’s expected survival duration. Results: Our research involved training multiple models on various cancer types and rigorously evaluating those models using the proposed metrics. We demonstrate that a model might be effective for one goal but ineffective for another, and show that we can determine this based on the measure used. Our findings underscore the importance of selecting an appropriate evaluation measure that is aligned with the primary objective of a study. Conclusion: This work highlights the need for evaluation metrics that are relevant to the research objectives and identifies which objective leads to which evaluation metric. This research sets a path for future research that seeks to further refine predictive models for oncological prognostication. Keywords: survival analysis, cancer study, machine learning, effective evaluation
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".