MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408664434 · doi:10.2196/62833

Association Between Risk Factors and Major Cancers: Explainable Machine Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4408664434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiayuan Huang, Yun Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintAssociation (psychology)Risk factorCancerProtective factorFactor (programming language)MedicineOncologyPsychologyComputer scienceInternal medicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cancer is a life-threatening disease and a leading cause of death worldwide, with an estimated 611,000 deaths and over 2 million new cases in the United States in 2024. The rising incidence of major cancers, including among younger individuals, highlights the need for early screening and monitoring of risk factors to manage and decrease cancer risk. Objective: This study aimed to leverage explainable machine learning models to identify and analyze the key risk factors associated with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. By uncovering significant associations between risk factors and these major cancer types, we sought to enhance the understanding of cancer diagnosis risk profiles. Our goal was to facilitate more precise screening, early detection, and personalized prevention strategies, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and promoting health equity. Methods: Deidentified electronic health record data from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III was used to identify patients with 4 types of cancer who had longitudinal hospital visits prior to their diagnosis presence. Their records were matched and combined with those of patients without cancer diagnoses using propensity scores based on demographic factors. Three advanced models, penalized logistic regression, random forest, and multilayer perceptron (MLP), were conducted to identify the rank of risk factors for each cancer type, with feature importance analysis for random forest and MLP models. The rank biased overlap was adopted to compare the similarity of ranked risk factors across cancer types. Results: Our framework evaluated the prediction performance of explainable machine learning models, with the MLP model demonstrating the best performance. It achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 for breast cancer (n=58), 0.76 for colorectal cancer (n=140), 0.84 for lung cancer (n=398), and 0.78 for prostate cancer (n=104), outperforming other baseline models (P<.001). In addition to demographic risk factors, the most prominent nontraditional risk factors overlapped across models and cancer types, including hyperlipidemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.11-1.17; P<.01), diabetes (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.29-1.39; P<.01), depressive disorders (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06-1.16; P<.01), heart diseases (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32-1.52; P<.01), and anemia (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.14-1.30; P<.01). The similarity analysis indicated the unique risk factor pattern for lung cancer from other cancer types. Conclusions: The study's findings demonstrated the effectiveness of explainable ML models in assessing nontraditional risk factors for major cancers and highlighted the importance of considering unique risk profiles for different cancer types. Moreover, this research served as a hypothesis-generating foundation, providing preliminary results for future investigation into cancer diagnosis risk analysis and management. Furthermore, expanding collaboration with clinical experts for external validation would be essential to refine model outputs, integrate findings into practice, and enhance their impact on patient care and cancer prevention efforts.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207