MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract B086: External validation of a multimodal machine learning system to predict outcomes in advanced pancreatic cancer in the PASS-01 trial

2025· article· en· W4414585727 on OpenAlexaff
David Henault, Amy X. Zhang, Gun Ho Jang, Nicholas Light, Zongliang Ji, Anna Dodd, Julie M. Wilson, Daniel J. Renouf, Daniel A. Laheru, Kenneth H. Yu, Kimberly Perez, Amber N. Habowski, Grainne M. O’Kane, Steven Gallinger, David A. Tuveson, Elizabeth M. Jaffee, Jennifer J. Knox, Rahul G. Krishnan, Sandra E. Fischer, Masoom A. Haider, Faiyaz Notta, Robert C. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileReceiver operating characteristicCohortPancreatic cancerHazard ratioGeneralizability theoryCompassClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a highly lethal disease with limited tools for predicting treatment response or survival. Our prior work, which applied machine learning to the COMPASS trial (NCT02750657), demonstrated that multimodal integration can enhance performance. Here, we evaluate model generalizability on an independent cohort from the PASS-01 clinical trial (NCT04469556). We developed predictive models using data from the COMPASS trial, incorporating clinical variables, histopathology image features, radiology-derived imaging features, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Our updated pipeline applied TabPFN, a transformer-based model, using repeated 5-fold cross-validation. Fusion approaches included both early and late modality integration. We focused on predicting disease control rate (DCR). We compared model performance to the PurIST RNA-seq classifier, a strong baseline. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was the primary metric. We externally validated the performance of models trained on COMPASS in the PASS-01 trial dataset. Among unimodal models, RNA-seq-based predictors achieved the highest AUC at 0.709 (95% CI: 0.595-0.820), significantly outperforming PurIST (p = 0.01). The performance of other unimodal models varied (clinical: 0.680; DNA: 0.527), with no significant difference compared to PurIST. The late fusion model, “MULTIPL”, integrated clinical, RNA, and DNA modalities and achieved the best overall performance at 0.733 (95% CI: 0.613-0.832), significantly outperforming PurIST (p = 0.002). The top 25th percentile of patients based on MULTIPL predicted DCR had significantly better prognosis (median overall survival 13.9 versus 8.6 months, hazard ratio 0.47 (95% CI: 0.28-0.78). The probability of DCR predicted by MULTIPL was correlated with the PurIST predictions of basal and classical transcriptomic subtypes (r = 0.63, p < 0.001), indicating a shared biology, which was further evidenced with SHapley Additive exPlanation interpretability analyses. Nonetheless, MULTIPL captured additional prognostic information, since PurIST was only modestly associated with DCR (AUC 0.55) and not significantly prognostic. Furthermore, the multimodal model was significantly associated with survival within the classical transcriptomic subtype. In conclusion, multimodal models trained on COMPASS data generalized to the PASS-01 trial in external validation. Late fusion of clinical, RNA, and DNA features achieved the best predictive performance for DCR and was also associated with survival outcomes, including within each transcriptomic subtype. In contrast to other models, which typically identify poor prognostic subgroups such as basal-like cancers, our multimodal model for DCR identifies a subset of patients with a more favourable prognosis. Together, these results demonstrate the potential of multimodal machine learning to improve prognostic modeling in advanced pancreatic cancer and guide personalized treatment strategies. Citation Format: Wei Quan, David Henault, Amy Zhang, Gun Ho Jang, Nicholas Light, Zongliang Ji, Anna Dodd, Julie Wilson, Daniel Renouf, Daniel Laheru, Kenneth Yu, Kimberly Perez, Amber Habowski, Grainne M. O'Kane, Steven Gallinger, David Tuveson, Elizabeth Jaffee, Jennifer J. Knox, Rahul G. Krishnan, Sandra Fischer, Masoom A. Haider, Faiyaz Notta, Robert C. Grant. External validation of a multimodal machine learning system to predict outcomes in advanced pancreatic cancer in the PASS-01 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Research—Emerging Science Driving Transformative Solutions; Boston, MA; 2025 Sep 28-Oct 1; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(18_Suppl_3):Abstract nr B086.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 venueCancer Research→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→