MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410613979 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.24.00213

Development of Explainable Machine Learning Models to Identify Patients at Risk for 1-Year Mortality and New Distant Metastases Postendoprosthetic Reconstruction for Lower Extremity Bone Tumors

2025· article· en· W4410613979 on OpenAlexaff
Jiawen Deng, Myron Moskalyk, Madhur Nayan, Ahmed Aoude, Michelle Ghert, Sahir Bhatnagar, Anthony Bozzo

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicArtificial intelligenceMachine learningRandom forestGradient boostingFeature selectionLogistic regressionLasso (programming language)MedicineConfidence intervalNomogramSupport vector machineNaive Bayes classifierDecision treeBoosting (machine learning)RegressionComputer scienceStatisticsOncologyInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Accurate prediction of postoperative metastasis and mortality risks in patients undergoing lower-limb oncological resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction is essential for guiding adjuvant therapies and managing patient expectations. Current prediction methods are limited by variability in patient-specific factors. This study aims to develop and internally validate explainable machine learning (ML) models to predict the 1-year risk of new distant metastases and mortality in these patients. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery trial, which included 604 patients. Candidate features were selected based on availability and clinical relevance and then narrowed using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and Boruta algorithms. Six ML classification algorithms were tuned and calibrated: logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and neural networks. Models were developed with and without including percent tumor necrosis due to its high missing data rate (>30%). Hyperparameters were tuned using Bayesian optimization. Internal validation was conducted using a 30% hold-out set. Model explainability was assessed using permutation-based feature importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations. Results: LightGBM was identified as the best-performing algorithm for both outcomes. For 1-year mortality prediction without percent necrosis, LightGBM achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.86) during cross-validation and 0.72 on internal validation. For distant metastasis prediction, the LightGBM model without percent necrosis achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.84) during cross-validation and 0.77 on internal validation. Including percent necrosis did not significantly improve model performance. The top predictors identified were patient age, largest tumor dimension, and tumor stage. Conclusions: Explainable ML models can effectively predict the 1-year risk of mortality and new distant metastases in patients undergoing lower-limb oncological resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. Further external validation and consideration of other data modalities are required before integrating these ML-driven risk assessments into routine clinical practice. Level of Evidence: Level II, Prognostic Study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBJS Open AccessSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207