Using Machine Learning Approaches on Dynamic Patient-Reported Outcomes to Cluster Cancer Treatment-Related Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients undergoing systemic treatment for cancer, symptom tracking via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has been used to optimize communication and monitoring, and facilitate the early detection of adverse effects and to compare the side effects of similar drugs. We aimed to examine whether the patterns in electronic patient-reported outcomes, without any additional clinician data input, are predictive of the underlying cancer type and reflect tumor- and treatment-associated symptom clusters (SCs). The data were derived from a total of 226 patients who self-reported on the presence and severity (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEs)) of more than 90 available symptoms via the mediduxTM app (versions 2.0 and 3.2, developed by mobile Health AG based in Zurich, Switzerland). Among these, 172 had breast cancer as the primary tumor, 19 had lung, 16 had gut, 12 had blood–lymph, and 7 had prostate cancer. For this secondary analysis, a subgroup of 25 patients with breast cancer were randomly selected to reduce the risk of overfitting. The symptoms were aggregated by counting the days on which a particular symptom was reported, resulting in a symptom vector for each patient. A logistic regression model was trained to predict the type of the respective tumor from the symptom vectors, and the symptoms with coefficients above (0.1) were graphically displayed. The machine learning model was not able to recognize any of the patients with prostate and blood–lymph cancer, likely as these cancer types were barely represented in the dataset. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) values for the three remaining cancer types were breast cancer: 0.74 (95% CI [0.624, 0.848]); gut cancer: 0.78 (95% CI [0.659, 0.893]); and lung cancer: 0.63 (95% CI [0.495, 0.771]). Despite the small datasets, for the breast and gut cancers, the respective models demonstrated a fair predictive performance (AUC > 0.7). The generalization of the findings are limited especially due to the heterogeneity of the dataset. This line of research could be especially interesting to monitor individual treatment trajectories. Deviations in the electronic patient-reported symptoms from the treatment-associated symptom patterns could dynamically indicate treatment non-adherence or lower treatment efficacy, without clinician input or additional costs. Similar analyses on larger patient cohorts are needed to validate these preliminary findings and to identify specific and robust treatment profiles.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".