Segmentation of patients with small cell lung cancer into responders and non-responders using the optimal cross-validation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The timing of treating cancer patients is an essential factor in the efficacy of treatment. So, patients who will not respond to current therapy should receive a different treatment as early as possible. Machine learning models can be built to classify responders and nonresponders. Such classification models predict the probability of a patient being a responder. Most methods use a probability threshold of 0.5 to convert the probabilities into binary group membership. However, the cutoff of 0.5 is not always the optimal choice. Methods In this study, we propose a novel data-driven approach to select a better cutoff value based on the optimal cross-validation technique. To illustrate our novel method, we applied it to three clinical trial datasets of small-cell lung cancer patients. We used two different datasets to build a scoring system to segment patients. Then the models were applied to segment patients into the test data. Results We found that, in test data, the predicted responders and non-responders had significantly different long-term survival outcomes. Our proposed novel method segments patients better than the standard approach using a cutoff of 0.5. Comparing clinical outcomes of responders versus non-responders, our novel method had a p-value of 0.009 with a hazard ratio of 0.668 for grouping patients using the Cox proportion hazard model and a p-value of 0.011 using the accelerated failure time model which approved a significant difference between responders and non-responders. In contrast, the standard approach had a p-value of 0.194 with a hazard ratio of 0.823 using the Cox proportion hazard model and a p-value of 0.240 using the accelerated failure time model indicating the responders and non-responders do not differ significantly in survival. Conclusion In summary, our novel prediction method can successfully segment new patients into responders and non-responders. Clinicians can use our prediction to decide if a patient should receive a different treatment or stay with the current treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".