MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A061: Machine Learning and Causal Inference-Based Predictive Risk Modeling of Unplanned Radiation Treatment Interruption

2025· article· en· W4412163888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rezaur Rashid, Soheil Hashtarkhani, Parnian Kheirkhah Rahimabad, Brianna M White, Fekede Asefa Kumsa, Lokesh Chinthala, Janet A. Zink, Christopher Brett, Robert L. Davis, Arash Shaban‐Nejad

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausal inferenceInferenceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Adherence to scheduled radiation therapy (RT) is a key determinant of cancer treatment quality and outcomes. For this study, we developed an interpretable AI model to identify 1) patients at risk for multiple unplanned RT interruptions and 2) modifiable factors contributing to an elevated risk of RT interruption. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral data from 2,525 RT patients treated at the University of Tennessee Medical Center (UTMC) in Knoxville. The study cohort was dichotomized into patients with 0-1 unplanned RT interruptions (Class 0; n≈2000) and those missing >2 sessions (Class 1; n≈500). The dataset was partitioned into training, validation, and test sets (70:15:15 ratio), with class imbalance addressed in the training set by synthetic data generation via Tabular Variational Autoencoder. Twenty-seven candidate features were initially evaluated for multicollinearity using correlation matrices, heatmap visualization, and Variance Inflation Factor analysis. We applied feature selection methods (correlation-based techniques and causality-based approaches) to limit further modeling to the most predictive 15 core features. We compared XGBoost and Neural Networks-based classifiers, with each model undergoing hyperparameter optimization using Bayesian optimization methods. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was used to identify influential predictors. Results: The final optimized XGBoost model provided an overall accuracy of 82% and AUC-ROC of 63% on the independent test set. All tested models yielded similar performance, confirming the consistent predictive value of our selected features despite class imbalance. SHAP analyses identified dominant predictive contributions from treatment factors (prescribed radiation dose per session), patient resources (insurance coverage, marital status, social vulnerability indices), and travel distance to the radiotherapy facility. Supplementary causal analysis employing total causal effect methods further corroborated the direct influence of all these features. Conclusions: Our results suggest that causal inference and explainable AI modeling can provide useful interrogative strategies to identify modifiable predictors of RT adherence. Further refinement of predictive decision-support tools may lead to automated approaches to match high-risk patients with personalized interventions (e.g. community-based care navigation and/or patient psychosocial support) in real-world clinical settings to overcome social barriers to RT access. Citation Format: Rezaur Rashid, Soheil Hashtarkhani, Parnian K. Rahimabad, Brianna M. White, Fekede A. Kumsa, Lokesh Chinthala, Janet A. Zink, Christopher L. Brett, Robert L. Davis, David L. Schwartz, Arash Shaban-Nejad. Machine Learning and Causal Inference-Based Predictive Risk Modeling of Unplanned Radiation Treatment Interruption [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 A061.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 ResearchSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207