Development of Machine Learning Systems to Predict Cancer-Related Symptoms With Validation Across a Health Care System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer and its treatment cause symptoms. In this study, we aimed to develop machine learning (ML) systems that predict future symptom deterioration among people receiving treatment for cancer and then validate the systems in a simulated deployment across an entire health care system. METHODS We trained and tested ML systems that predict a deterioration in nine patient-reported symptoms within 30 days after treatments for aerodigestive cancers, using internal electronic health record (EHR) data at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (3,229 patients; 20,267 treatments). The primary performance metric was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The best-performing systems in the held-out internal test set were then externally validated across 82 cancer centers in Ontario (12,079 patients; 77,003 treatments) by adapting techniques from meta-analysis. RESULTS The best ML systems predicted symptom deterioration with AUROCs ranging from 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69) for dyspnea to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.75) for drowsiness in the internal test cohort. Treatments flagged as high-risk were significantly associated with future symptom deterioration (odds ratios [ORs], 2.53-6.56; all P < .001) and emergency department visits for dyspnea (OR, 1.85; P = .008), depression (OR, 1.84; P = .04), and anxiety (OR, 2.66; P < .001). In the external validation cohort, the AUROCs for different symptoms meta-analyzed across centers ranged from 0.67 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.68) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.74). Performance across centers displayed significant heterogeneity for six of nine symptoms (I 2 , 46.4%-66.9%; P = .004 for dyspnea, P < .001 for the rest). CONCLUSION ML can predict future symptoms among people with cancer from routine EHR data, which could guide personalized interventions. Heterogeneous performance across centers must be considered when systems are deployed across a health care system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it