MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A059: CP-Fuse: A Comprehensive Assessment of Clinico-Pathological Fusion in TCGA Survival Prediction

2025· article· en· W4412163904 on OpenAlexaffabout
Juan A. Durán, Yujing Zou, Harry Glickman, Elliot Wadge, Khalil Sultanem, George Shenouda, Martin Vallières, Shirin A. Enger

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeJewish General HospitalQ & T ResearchMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologicalMedicineOncologyFuse (electrical)Internal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cancer remains a leading cause of global mortality. Multidisciplinary tumor boards play a central role in diagnosis and treatment planning but often face challenges related to growing case complexity, time constraints, and inconsistent expertise. Artificial intelligence models that incorporate diverse data sources such as histopathology and clinical records offer valuable decision-support tools, and multimodal approaches have been shown to outperform unimodal methods. This study introduces CP-Fuse, a novel multimodal framework that aims to improve progression-free survival (PFS) prediction in cancer patients by integrating digital pathology whole slide images (WSI) and clinical variables. Our approach has two main branches: the WSI branch (P-solo), using the Hierarchical Pyramid Transformer with DeepSurv, and the clinical branch (C-solo), using FTTransformer with DeepSurv. To combine the two modalities, we tested five fusion strategies: CP-fuse-marginal (simple concatenation), CP-fuse-crossattention (cross-attention between modalities), CP-fuse-trainableweights (late fusion with learnable scalar weights), CP-fuse-metalearning (meta-learner combining outputs), and CP-fuse-VAE (a variational autoencoder learning a shared representation). Performance is assessed on five TCGA cohorts (HNSC, BLCA, UCEC, LUAD, and BRCA), comprising a total of 2,867 patients. Rather than relying on a single train-validation split, we used 10-fold cross-validation repeated 100 times. This setup reduces the impact of random splits and provides a more reliable estimate of model performance. We report the average C-index across all runs. To obtain a robust estimate of model performance and mitigate the impact of individual fold splits, we conducted 100 runs of 10-fold cross-validation, each employing different fold configurations. Under these repeated evaluations, the clinical-only model (C-solo) consistently outperformed the WSI-only model (P-solo) across all cohorts, showing the largest C-index gap in HNSC (0.6859 vs. 0.5503) and the smallest in BRCA (0.7198 vs. 0.6063). Fusion models provided further gains in risk ranking and calibration, especially CP-fuse-VAE, which attained the highest C-index in four of five cohorts, exceeding C-solo by 0.0392 in LUAD (0.6771 vs. 0.6379) and by 0.0352 in BRCA (0.7550 vs. 0.7198). These findings underscore the potential of our multimodal approach. Notably, the CP-Fuse-VAE model outperformed the unimodal clinical model (C-solo), demonstrating that integrating WSI with clinical variables reveals predictive insights inaccessible to single modalities. Our results show that cross-modal interactions enhance relative risk ranking and capture essential prognostic signals. Furthermore, our use of an unprecedented 100-run cross-validation protocol to quantify fold-to-fold variability sets a new standard in methodological rigor, ensuring robust and reproducible. Prior survival studies have typically relied on a single split or standard k-fold validation without analyzing variability across folds, a gap our work addresses directly. Citation Format: Juan Felipe. Duran, Yujing Zou, Harry Glickman, Elliot Wadge, Khalil Sultanem, George Shenouda, Martin Vallières, Shirin Abbasinejad Enger. CP-Fuse: A Comprehensive Assessment of Clinico-Pathological Fusion in TCGA Survival Prediction [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 A059.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.402
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→