Expert Judgment Supporting a Bayesian Network to Model the Survival of Pancreatic Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pancreatic cancer is known for its poor prognosis. The most effective treatment combines surgery with peri-operative chemotherapy. Current prognostic tools are designed to predict patient outcomes and inform treatment decisions based on collected data. Bayesian networks (BNs) can integrate objective data with subjective clinical insights, such as expert opinions, or they can be independently based on either element. This pilot study is one of the first efforts to incorporate expert opinions into a prognostic model using a Bayesian framework. Methods: A clinical hybrid BN was selected to model the long-term overall survival of pancreatic cancer patients. The SHELF expert judgment method was employed to enhance the BN’s effectiveness. This approach involved a two-phase protocol: an initial single-center pilot phase followed by a definitive international phase. Results: Experts generally agreed on the distribution shape among the 12 clinically relevant predictive variables identified for the BN. However, discrepancies were noted in the tumor size, age, and ASA score nodes. With regard to expert concordance for each node, tumor size, and ASA score exhibited absolute concordance, indicating a strong consensus among experts. Ca19.9 values and resectability status showed high concordance, reflecting a solid agreement among the experts. The remaining nodes showed acceptable concordance. Conclusions: This project introduces a novel clinical hybrid Bayesian network (BN) that incorporates expert elicitation and clinical variables present at diagnosis to model the survival of pancreatic cancer patients. This model aims to provide research-based evidence for more reliable prognosis predictions and improved decision-making, addressing the limitations of existing survival prediction models. A validation process will be essential to evaluate the model’s performance and clinical applicability.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".