MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412788639 · doi:10.2196/75022

Deep Learning and Image Generator Health Tabular Data (IGHT) for Predicting Overall Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Study

2025· article· en· W4412788639 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seo Hyun Oh, Youngho Lee, Jeong‐Heum Baek, Woongsang Sunwoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintColorectal cancerMedicineComputer scienceCancerArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have contributed to improved predictive modeling in health care, particularly in oncology. Traditional methods often rely on structured tabular data, but these approaches can struggle to capture complex interactions among clinical variables. Image generator for health tabular data (IGHT) transform tabular electronic medical record (EMR) data into structured 2D image matrices, enabling the use of powerful computer vision-based deep learning models. This approach offers a novel baseline for survival prediction in colorectal cancer by leveraging spatial encoding of clinical features, potentially enhancing prognostic accuracy and interpretability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a deep learning model using EMR data to predict 5-year overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer and to examine the clinical interpretability of model predictions using explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques. METHODS: Anonymized EMR data of 3321 patients at the Gil Medical Center were analyzed. The dataset included demographic details, tumor characteristics, laboratory values, treatment modalities, and follow-up outcomes. Clinical variables were converted into 2D image matrices using the IGHT. Patients were stratified into colon and rectal cancer groups to account for biological and prognostic differences. Three models were developed and compared: a conventional artificial neural network (ANN), a basic convolutional neural network (CNN), and a transfer learning-based Visual Geometry Group (VGG)16 model. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-scores. To interpret model decisions, gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) was applied to visualize regions of the input images that contributed most to predictions, enabling identification of key prognostic features. RESULTS: Among the tested models, VGG16 exhibited superior predictive performance, achieving an accuracy of 78.44% for colon cancer and 74.83% for rectal cancer. It showed notably high specificity (89.55% for colon cancer and 87.9% for rectal cancer), indicating strong reliability in correctly identifying patients likely to survive beyond 5 years. Compared to ANN and CNN models, VGG16 achieved a better balance between sensitivity and specificity, demonstrating robustness in the presence of moderate class imbalance within the dataset. Grad-CAM visualization highlighted clinically relevant features (eg, age, gender, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA) grade, liver disease, pulmonary disease, and initial carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] levels). Conversely, the CNN model yielded lower overall accuracy and low specificity, which limits its immediate applicability in clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed IGHT-based deep learning model, particularly leveraging the VGG16 architecture, demonstrates promising accuracy and interpretability in predicting 5-year overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Its capability to effectively stratify patients into risk categories with balanced sensitivity and specificity underscores its potential utility as a clinical decision support system (CDSS) tool. Future studies incorporating external validation with multicenter cohorts and prospective designs are necessary to establish generalizability and clinical integration feasibility.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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 venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207