Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Predicts Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer treatment has been revolutionized by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, a subset of patients do not respond and/or they experience significant adverse events. Attempts to integrate reliable biomarkers of ICI response as part of standard care have been hampered by limited generalizability. We previously reported our supervised machine learning (ML) model in a retrospective cohort of metastatic melanoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this study, we expanded our testing to include larger cohorts of patients with melanoma accrued at several sites, including patients enrolled in clinical trials in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. We examined pretreatment hematoxylin and eosin slides from 639 patients with stage III/IV melanoma treated with ICIs [anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (n = 212), anti-programmed death 1 (n = 271), or the combination (n = 156)]. We tested the generalizability of our supervised ML algorithm to predict response to ICIs in the metastatic melanoma cohort and then developed a self-supervised ML model to identify the histologic morphologies associated with patients' survival following ICI use in adjuvant and metastatic melanoma cohorts. RESULTS: We predicted the response to ICI treatment with an AUC of 0.72. The deep convolutional neural network classified patients into high and low risk based on their likelihood of progression-free survival (P < 0.0001). We uncovered a novel association of specific histomorphologic tumor features-epithelioid histology and a low tumor-stroma ratio-with survival following ICI treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the generalizability of our developed ML algorithm in predicting response to ICI treatment in patients with metastatic unresectable melanoma. We also showed, for the first time, tumor features associated with patients' overall survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".