MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414497914 · doi:10.1200/cci-25-00073

Development of Machine Learning Systems to Predict Cancer-Related Symptoms With Validation Across a Health Care System

2025· article· en· W4414497914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Baijiang Yuan, Muammar Kabir, Jiang Chen He, Y Q Li, Benjamin Grant, Sharon Narine, Mattea Welch, Sho Podolsky, Ning Liu, Rami Ajaj, Luna Jia Zhan, Aly Fawzy, Janine Xu, Yuhua Zhang, Vivien Yu, Wei Xu, Rahul G. Krishnan, Steven Gallinger, Kelvin Chan, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Tran Truong, Geoffrey Liu, Robert C. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreVector InstituteInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealthcare systemMEDLINEPatient careCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Clinical Cancer InformaticsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207