The Hallmarks of Predictive Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rapid evolution of machine learning has led to a proliferation of sophisticated models for predicting therapeutic responses in cancer. While many of these show promise in research, standards for clinical evaluation and adoption are lacking. Here, we propose seven hallmarks by which predictive oncology models can be assessed and compared. These are Data Relevance and Actionability, Expressive Architecture, Standardized Benchmarking, Generalizability, Interpretability, Accessibility and Reproducibility, and Fairness. Considerations for each hallmark are discussed along with an example model scorecard. We encourage the broader community, including researchers, clinicians, and regulators, to engage in shaping these guidelines toward a concise set of standards. Significance: As the field of artificial intelligence evolves rapidly, these hallmarks are intended to capture fundamental, complementary concepts necessary for the progress and timely adoption of predictive modeling in precision oncology. Through these hallmarks, we hope to establish standards and guidelines that enable the symbiotic development of artificial intelligence and precision oncology.
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 | 0.221 | 0.337 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".