A Hybrid Deep Learning–Based Feature Selection Approach for Supporting Early Detection of Long-Term Behavioral Outcomes in Survivors of Cancer: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of survivors of cancer is growing, and they often experience negative long-term behavioral outcomes due to cancer treatments. There is a need for better computational methods to handle and predict these outcomes so that physicians and health care providers can implement preventive treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a new feature selection algorithm to improve the performance of machine learning classifiers to predict negative long-term behavioral outcomes in survivors of cancer. METHODS: We devised a hybrid deep learning-based feature selection approach to support early detection of negative long-term behavioral outcomes in survivors of cancer. Within a data-driven, clinical domain-guided framework to select the best set of features among cancer treatments, chronic health conditions, and socioenvironmental factors, we developed a 2-stage feature selection algorithm, that is, a multimetric, majority-voting filter and a deep dropout neural network, to dynamically and automatically select the best set of features for each behavioral outcome. We also conducted an experimental case study on existing study data with 102 survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (aged 15-39 years at evaluation and >5 years postcancer diagnosis) who were treated in a public hospital in Hong Kong. Finally, we designed and implemented radial charts to illustrate the significance of the selected features on each behavioral outcome to support clinical professionals' future treatment and diagnoses. RESULTS: , precision, and recall scores compared to existing feature selection methods. The models in this study select several significant clinical and socioenvironmental variables as risk factors associated with the development of behavioral problems in young survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel feature selection algorithm has the potential to improve machine learning classifiers' capability to predict adverse long-term behavioral outcomes in survivors of cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".