MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391971096 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3853941/v1

A Study on the Feasibility of Optimizing Gastric Cancer Screening to Reduce Screening Costs in China Using a Gradient Boosting Machine: A prospective, large-sample, single-center study

2024· preprint· en· W4391971096 on OpenAlexaff
Xin-yu Fu, Rongbin Qi, Shan-jing Xu, Meng‐sha Huang, Cong-ni Zhu, Hao-wen Wu, Zongqing Ma, Zhicheng Liu, Shen-ping Tang, Yan-di Lu, Lingling Yan, Xiao‐Kang Li, Jiawei Liang, Xinli Mao, Liping Ye, Shao-wei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersScience and Technology Program of Zhejiang ProvinceMedical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsBoosting (machine learning)Gradient boostingCenter (category theory)CancerChinaSample (material)Single CenterMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineGeographyChromatographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and aim: The current cancer screening model in our country involves preliminary screening and identification of individuals who require gastroscopy, in order to control screening costs. The purpose of this study is to optimize the screening process using Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), a machine learning technique, based on a large-scale prospective gastric cancer screening dataset. The ultimate goal is to further reduce the cost of initial cancer screening. Methods The study constructs a GBM machine learning model based on prospective, large-sample Taizhou City gastric cancer screening data and validates it with data from the Minimum Security Cohort Group (MLGC) in Taizhou City. Both data analysis and machine learning model construction were performed using the R programming language. Results A total of 195,640 cases were used as the training set, and 32,994 cases were used as an external validation set. A GBM was built based on the training set, yielding area under the curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUCPR) values of 0.99938 and 0.99823, respectively. External validation of the model yielded AUC and AUCPR values of 0.99742 and 0.99454, respectively. Through a visual analysis of the model, it was determined that the variable for Helicobacter pylori IgG could be eliminated. The GBM model was then reconstructed without the H. pylori IgG variable. In the training set, the new model achieved an AUC of 0.99817 and an AUCPR of 0.99462, whereas in the external validation set, it achieved an AUC of 0.99742 and an AUCPR of 0.99454. Conclusion This study utilized a dataset of 230,000 samples to train and validate a GBM model, optimizing the initial screening process by excluding the detection of H. pylori IgG antibodies while maintaining satisfactory discriminative performance. This conclusion will contribute to a reduction in the current cost of gastric cancer screening, demonstrating its economic value. Furthermore, the conclusion is derived from a large sample size, giving it clinical significance and generalizability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207