MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A062: Uncovering Social and Clinical Determinants of Baseline Distress Prior to Radiation Therapy: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4412163645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soheil Hashtarkhani, Rezaur Rashid, Parnian Kheirkhah Rahimabad, Fekede Asefa Kumsa, Brianna M White, Lokesh Chinthala, Janet A. Zink, Christopher Brett, Robert L. Davis, David L. Schwartz, Arash Shaban‐Nejad

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)DistressMedicineRadiation therapyPsychologyIntensive care medicinePsychotherapistClinical psychologySurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Psychological distress impacts cancer treatment adherence, outcomes, and quality of life. While predictive models can identify patients at elevated risk, understanding the mechanistic drivers of distress will be essential to design personalized psychosocial interventions. In this study, we applied explainable machine learning to predict and interpret baseline distress levels in cancer patients preparing to undergo radiation therapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 2,103 patients treated at the University of Tennessee Medical Center (UTMC) in Knoxville. 1,953 were formally screened by an ONC Distress Depression Score instrument prior to radiation therapy, with 1,759 providing a numeric distress rating (0–10). An XGBoost regression model was trained to predict patient distress scores using a broad set of variables, including age, body mass index (BMI), ICD-coded cancer diagnosis category, marital status, insurance type, smoking and alcohol use, and neighborhood-level socioeconomic indicators such as median household income, educational attainment, and social vulnerability. Hyperparameters were optimized via Bayesian search, and model performance was evaluated with cross-validation. To ensure interpretability, we employed Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to quantify each feature’s contribution to the predicted distress and to visualize the direction and non-linearity of these effects. Results: Distress levels were skewed toward the lower end of the scale, with 55.6% of patients reporting mild (<4), 20.0% moderate (4–6), and 15.9% severe (7–10) distress. The final model demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy, explaining approximately 59% of the variance in distress scores (R2 = 0.592, RMSE = 2.00, MAE = 1.67). SHAP analysis provided interpretable insights into how individual features influenced distress predictions. The top six contributors to predicted distress were younger age, lung cancer diagnosis, metastatic disease, current smoking, dual Medicare-Medicaid insurance coverage, and divorced marital status; all were associated with higher distress levels. These relationships highlighted both linear and non-linear effects, offering clinically meaningful explanations of patient-level risk. Conclusion: Our results suggest that explainable AI can contribute accurate predictions and interpretable insights into the contributors of psychological distress in cancer patients prior to radiation therapy. By combining XGBoost modeling with SHAP-based explanation, we uncovered potentially modifiable candidate drivers of distress. These findings support ongoing investigations to integrate interpretable machine learning strategies into clinical workflows to enhance preemptive, personalized supportive care interventions during radiation therapy planning. Citation Format: Soheil Hashtarkhani, Rezaur Rashid, Parnian K. Rahimabad, Fekede A. Kumsa, Brianna M. White, Lokesh Chinthala, Janet A. Zink, Christopher L. Brett, Robert L. Davis, David L. Schwartz, Arash Shaban-Nejad. Uncovering Social and Clinical Determinants of Baseline Distress Prior to Radiation Therapy: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr A062.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→