MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416412155 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf323

FaceAge as a biomarker for prognosis and treatment stratification in a large-scale oncology cohort

2025· article· en· W4416412155 on OpenAlexaff
Grace C. Lee, Fridolin Haugg, Dennis Bontempi, Osbert C. Zalay, Danielle S. Bitterman, Paul J. Catalano, Vasco Prudente, Suraj Pai, Christian V. Guthier, Benjamin H. Kann, Dirk De Ruysscher, Hugo J.W.L. Aerts, Raymond H. Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortBiomarkerRisk stratificationCohort studyPrognostic modelPrecision medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Humans age at different rates, and facial characteristics may yield insight into biological age and physiologic health. FaceAge, a deep learning system designed to estimate biological age based on facial photographs, has shown potential as a biomarker for cancer prognosis. This study investigated the prognostic value of extreme discordance between FaceAge and chronological age (FaceAge - Age) in predicting survival and early mortality across a large clinical dataset of 28 cancer types. METHODS: Data from 24 556 patients with cancer aged 60 years or older treated with radiation therapy between 2008 and 2023 were analyzed. FaceAge estimates were compared with chronological age across different diagnoses/clinical contexts, and survival analyses were performed. All tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: The FaceAge estimate was older than the chronological age in 65% of participants (median FaceAge = 74 years vs chronological age = 70 years). Younger patients, female patients, patients with diagnoses associated with worse prognosis, and patients receiving treatment with palliative intent had a higher likelihood of FaceAge - Age ≥10 years. Patients with FaceAge - Age ≥10 years had statistically significantly worse survival, while patients with FaceAge - Age ≤‒5 years had better survival. On multivariate analysis, FaceAge - Age ≥10 years predicted higher mortality risk (hazard ratio = 1.26; P < .001) and early mortality at 30 days (odds ratio = 1.38, P = .004) and 60 days (odds ratio = 1.33, P < .001), whereas FaceAge - Age ≤‒5 years predicted lower mortality risk (hazard ratio = 0.90; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more advanced cancers tend to have statistically significantly older FaceAge than chronological age, and extreme discordance between FaceAge and chronological age is a novel, independent predictor of survival and early mortality. These findings support further development of facial health assessments for clinical prognostication models and personalized treatment decision making.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207